Western University
Scholarship@Western
Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository
April 2016
The Constellations of Empiricism, New Science,
and Mind in Hobbes, Locke, and Hume
Lisa Pelot
The University of Western Ontario
Supervisor
Robert Stainton
The University of Western Ontario
Graduate Program in Philosophy
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree in Doctor of Philosophy
© Lisa Pelot 2016
Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd
Part of the Epistemology Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, Metaphysics Commons,
Philosophy of Mind Commons, and the Philosophy of Science Commons
Recommended Citation
Pelot, Lisa, "The Constellations of Empiricism, New Science, and Mind in Hobbes, Locke, and Hume" (2016). Electronic Thesis and
Dissertation Repository. Paper 3936.
This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis
and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Abstract
In this thesis, positive and negative tensions among the “unit-ideas” of New Science
and empiricism are explored as they relate to explanations of aspects of mind in the
Modern period. Some constellations of ideas are mutually supporting, and provide
fruitful discussion on how mind can fit into the natural world. This project aims to
clarify the adequacy of this type of framework in accommodating and explaining
mind, and aspects of mind. I proceed by analyzing key texts via the “unit-ideas” of
New Science and empiricism. The three central chapters are case studies, looking at
Hobbes, Locke, and Hume. In each chapter I analyse an aspect of the mental as it is
explained within a version of the framework created by that thinker’s particular
constellation of New Science and empiricism.
In evaluating the adequacy of these frameworks to handle the problem presented to
them, new insights appear about the historical figures and the texts. For example, in
analyzing Hobbes’ framework for explaining mind, the impact of Hobbes’ view of
mind on his political philosophy comes into relief, creating space for new research
avenues. Identifying underlying tensions within Locke’s explanatory framework, it
becomes possible to put to bed an old debate about whether Locke was a libertarian,
a compatibilist, or a necessitarian. And in understanding clearly the ways in which
Hume’s version of this constellation of ideas leads to his view of volition, at least
one interpretation of Hume as a metaphysician can be decisively rejected.
This project is intended partly as an illustration of the significance of the historical
dimension to adequately understanding contemporary issues in Philosophy of Mind.
It is important to recognize that there are certain conditions for possibility of the
emergence of philosophical concepts and views, and that the way problems can be
resolved depends very much on the way they are posed or articulated. This project
straddles the sub-fields of Philosophy of Mind and History of Philosophy.
i
Keywords
Empiricism, mental architecture, New Science, reason, passion, volition, free will,
liberty, materialism, empiricist, Philosophy of Mind, mental phenomena, History of
Philosophy of Mind, Modern empiricism, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, metaphysics,
rationality, mind.
ii
Acknowledgments
I am very grateful for the guidance, feedback, and support that has been essential to
this project. I thank my supervisor, Rob Stainton, who not only helped me bring this
project to completion, but also encouraged and invited me back into graduate school.
The impact of this man on my intellectual life and development cannot be overstated. Over the years, Rob has modeled for me personal and intellectual standards,
and demonstrated how to be a heart-centered philosopher. Rob, my respect for you is
profound, and I thank you for your support, and for helping me take this work to
completion.
My thanks go also to Henrik Lagerlund for time and energy spent clarifying
important aspects of this work, and the connections between Modern thinking and
the Scholastics. I also thank Lorne Falkenstein, who inspired me to study this area
and these thinkers, for guidance, and countless hours spent reading drafts and
providing detailed and highly constructive feedback. I am grateful to my long-time
trusted counselor and guide, Chris Viger, for providing constructive critique, for
sharing knowledge, listening, being genuinely interested in my questions and
concerns, and for numberless small acts of kindness. Thank you also to Dennis
Klimchuk for invaluable insight in comments on various drafts. I am also grateful to
Tracy Isaacs for her humanity in her work as an administrator, and for going above
and beyond as Graduate Chair.
I thank the Ontario Graduate Scholarship Program and Western University’s
Philosophy Department for financial support. I also gratefully acknowledge financial
support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada,
provided through a grant to Robert J. Stainton, and through a grant from the Ontario
Government’s Online Initiative to Chris Viger and David Bourget.
For your love and support, even in the face of what you thought a crazy dream, I
thank my parents, Richard & Aila Pelot, my sisters, Veronica, Amanda, and my
iii
brothers-in-law John, and Darcy. For inspiration I thank my late grandfather, Ivan
Pelot. For diversion, I thank the little ones, Remy and Simone.
Special thanks to my friends who also supported me in innumerable ways: Allyson,
Meghan, Mark, Simin, Deborah, Casee, Dianne, Liv, Cathy, Annette, Ian, Brian,
Deborah, the Zarify family, Michelle & Richard, and Sarah & David.
Last, but not least, deep gratitude goes to D. Anthony Larivière—formidable
interlocutor, indefatigable cheerleader, and true Friend—whose faith and vision was
necessary to bring this doctor into being. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
“Everything that is made beautiful and fair and lovely is made for the eye of the one
who sees.” ~ Rumi.
iv
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... I
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................. III
FOREWARD: HOW I GOT HERE ............................................................................................. VIII
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... V
CHAPTER ONE .................................................................................................................................. 1
WHAT MY PROJECT IS AND WHAT IT ISN’T ............................................................. 1
WHAT ARE UNIT-IDEAS? ......................................................................................... 5
BROADER PERSPECTIVE; ENRICHED CONCEPTUAL, RESOURCES & REVEALED
ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................................... 6
THE PARTICULARS OF MY STUDY ............................................................................ 8
TWO KEY NOTIONS: EMPIRICISM & NEW SCIENCE ................................................ 10
TABLE 1 ................................................................................................................. 14
TABLE 2 ................................................................................................................. 15
SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 15
A FINAL CAVEAT: ERRORS MAY LIE IN WAIT FOR WE NON-SPECIALISTS ............ 15
WORKS CITED ........................................................................................................ 18
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................. 19
HOBBESIAN MENTAL ARCHITECTURE .................................................................... 19
THE GAME PLAN .................................................................................................... 22
BACKGROUND NOTIONS: INNATE HETEROGENEIETY, INNATE HOMOGENEITY,
DERIVED HETEROGENEITY..................................................................................... 22
HOBBES’ EMPIRICISM............................................................................................. 23
HOBBES’ NEW SCIENCE ......................................................................................... 26
HOBBES’ MENTAL ARCHITECTURE: CONCEPTIONS, IMAGINATION, AND DREAMS . 27
MENTAL ARCHITECTURE: RATIOCINATION ............................................................ 29
MENTAL ARCHITECTURE: PASSIONS ...................................................................... 30
THE INTEGRATION OF PASSION AND THOUGHT ...................................................... 33
A BRIEF ASIDE: IMPLICATIONS FOR HOBBES’ POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.................. 36
MENTAL ARCHITECTURE: DELIBERATION.............................................................. 37
MENTAL ARCHITECTURE: VOLITION ...................................................................... 38
v
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 41
WORKS CITED ........................................................................................................ 44
CHAPTER THREE ......................................................................................................................... 46
TENSIONS IN LOCKE ON FREE WILL ....................................................................... 46
THE TROUBLE WITH LOCKE ON FREE WILL........................................................... 46
FIGURE 1 ................................................................................................................ 48
THE GAME PLAN .................................................................................................... 49
REMINDER: MY HIP APPROACH ............................................................................ 50
BACKGROUND: THE THREE STANDARD POSITIONS ON FREEDOM AND VOLITION .. 50
BACKGROUND TO LOCKE ON FREE WILL: THE HOBBES-BRAMHALL DEBATE ....... 53
LOCKE: THE GREAT ENGLISH EMPIRICIST ............................................................. 55
LOCKE THE NEW SCIENTIST ................................................................................... 57
LOCKE’S FIRST ATTEMPT (1690): FITTING MIND INTO THE NATURAL WORLD...... 58
CRITICAL RECEPTION BY LOCKE’S CONTEMPORARIES ........................................... 62
“SECOND THOUGHTS” (1694): FOCUS ON SELF-OBSERVATION ............................. 63
NEW PROBLEMS ..................................................................................................... 67
FIFTH EDITION REVISIONS (1706) .......................................................................... 69
PROBLEMS & INCONSISTENCIES ............................................................................. 73
CRITICAL RECEPTION OF LATER EDITIONS FROM LOCKE’S CONTEMPORARIES ..... 74
A LIBERTARIAN INTERPRETATION ......................................................................... 75
A COMPATIBILIST INTERPRETATION ...................................................................... 75
REAL TENSIONS ..................................................................................................... 77
THE TROUBLE WITH THE SEARCH FOR A “FINAL POSITION” .................................. 80
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 82
WORKS CITED ........................................................................................................ 84
CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................................ 86
HUME THE METAPHYSICIAN? A RESPONSE TO BUCKLE ........................................ 86
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 86
REMINDER: POH AND HIP ..................................................................................... 88
HOBBES’ EMPIRICIST ACCOUNT OF MIND & VOLITION ......................................... 88
HUME’S EMPIRICIST APPROACH TO MIND.............................................................. 94
vi
IMPRESSIONS & IDEAS............................................................................................ 95
HUME’S SEMANTIC EMPIRICISM ............................................................................ 96
HUME, NEWTON & FORMULATING HYPOTHESES ................................................... 97
HUME’S VIEW OF VOLITION ................................................................................. 102
BUCKLE’S ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 103
CONTRASTS BETWEEN HOBBES AND DESCARTES ................................................ 103
THE FUNCTION OF EMPIRICISM IN HOBBES’ ACCOUNT ........................................ 106
FINDING THE RIGHT CONTRASTS ......................................................................... 108
PARALLELS BETWEEN HOBBES AND HUME.......................................................... 110
HUME’S METAPHYSICAL AGNOSTICISM ............................................................... 113
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 117
WORKS CITED ...................................................................................................... 120
CHAPTER 5................................................................................................................................... 122
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 122
UNIT-IDEAS - REVISITED ...................................................................................... 122
FOR HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY ............................................................................. 122
FOR CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY...................................................................... 123
SPECIFICS: EMPIRICISM, NEW SCIENCE, AND ASPECTS OF MIND ......................... 124
TABLE 1 ............................................................................................................... 124
TABLE 2 ............................................................................................................... 125
THREE CASE STUDIES: HOBBES, LOCKE AND HUME ............................................. 126
LIMITATIONS: ....................................................................................................... 127
FINDINGS – EMPIRICISM & NEW SCIENCE ............................................................ 127
FITTING MIND INTO THE NATURAL WORLD ......................................................... 128
FUTURE DIRECTIONS ............................................................................................ 130
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 130
WORKS CITED .................................................................................................. 132
CURRICULUM VITAE ................................................................................................................. 133
vii
Foreward: How I Got Here
This book does not run a straight course from beginning to end. It hunts; and in the
hunting…It drinks often from the same streams, and stumbles over some cruel
country. And it counts not the kill but what it learned of the territory explored.
~ Nelson Goodman, Ways of Worldmaking
When I first began to seriously approach issues of mind in graduate school, I felt
very confused and out of place. I felt confused by the way I saw questions being
posed and answered by my peers and colleagues, and didn’t understand why they
had the particular concerns that they did. I wasn’t bothered by the same things
others were. On the other hand, I was bothered by problems and assumptions that
others took for granted. We lacked a shared foundation of background assumptions,
and this not only took me some time to figure out, but it was also very disconcerting
to me. The main difference, as I see it, is that while I do not deny the idea of
philosophical progress, I tend to view philosophical problems and solutions as
features of a very broad spectrum of circumstances. What I mean is that the way
people think about problems depends very much on what is thinkable in the time and
place in which they are working, as well as the social and political dimensions of
life. It’s not that my colleagues would deny these factors; it’s that they tend to
recede into the background. What appeared in the foreground for them, it seemed,
was less these “textural” elements, and more the “scientific facts.” This difference
might be thought of as an expression of the analytic/continental distinction in
Western philosophy. What I thought I was doing when I was doing philosophy, and
what I thought philosophy was for, seemed to be very different from what those
around me seemed to think.
viii
In my very feminist-informed context, I decided this might be a gender issue. I was
exposed to a lot of talk about the pernicious effect of implicit sexism, not only
within philosophy departments, but also hidden deeply within philosophical
questions and methodologies. I co-wrote a paper entitled, What Would a Feminist
Approach Add to the Philosophy of Mind? and decided it was worthwhile to work in
this area. The easy recognition that the context of a conversation matters allowed
me to feel more understood in feminist circles. But this was really more an
understanding of my plight as a woman philosopher than it was resonation about the
problems of mind that concerned me. Frustrated with my experience, I decided on a
whim to write the history of philosophy comprehensive exam rather than the
philosophy of mind exam, in fulfillment of my program requirements. I passed that
exam with distinction, and Lorne Falkenstein invited me to work with him to clarify
Locke’s final position on volition. The idea of working on mind from an angle that
was self-reflective about the significance of context—time, space, politics, and
social influences—appealed to me.
The Modern period is especially interesting and significant when it comes to the
development of theories of mind. This is partly because with the advent of the
Scientific Revolution people began to rethink what makes something explanatory,
and to reconsider methods of gathering evidence, and testing it. The development of
the scientific method, and the centrality of science to intellectual inquiry generally,
as well as the “democratization” of knowledge, all bore significantly on both the
methodology of studying mind, and on the nature of an adequate explanation of
mind. There is an important connection between the knowledge-gathering enterprise
of science, and studies into the nature of mind itself. This connection can be seen,
for example, in Hume’s Treatise. There, Hume describes human beings not only as
the scientists studying nature, but also the objects of scientific scrutiny.
After exploring contemporary Philosophy of Mind, issues of gender and philosophy
of mind, and historical explanations and models of mind, I began working to clarify
my historiographical commitments and marrying them to my philosophical aims.
ix
Turning toward historical philosophy of mind allowed me to exercise my
“continental” commitments, perspective, and skill set. My approach tends toward
continental philosophy in the sense that it is grounded in a robust appreciation for
the literary elements of philosophical texts, as well as a healthy skepticism of the
idea that the natural sciences are the only, or the most accurate, way to understand
natural phenomena. At the same time, my approach is analytic in the sense that it
employs the rigorous tools and methods of conceptual analysis and logical relations
that are characteristic of the analytic tradition.
An important insight that arose during my academic development is that a telltale
feature of my personal philosophical style is to innovate and deepen understanding
by creating new combinations of seemingly disparate ideas, methods, and styles.
Traditionally, it is characteristic of the masculine to create distinctions, while it is
characteristic of the feminine to create connections. Both are valuable and
necessary, and yet the socio-historical context we find ourselves in is not neutral
about the value of the masculine and feminine principles. As a culture, philosophy
still rewards what is traditionally masculine. Yet the more I tried to fit that mold, the
worse I felt. In my lived experience, bringing seemingly disparate things together
harmoniously and finding middle ground, is one exemplification of virtue, the
middle path, and the golden mean. Hume advised, “Be a philosopher; but, amidst all
your philosophy, be a man.” It’s not easy to separate what it is to be a man or
woman and what it is to be a philosopher, and it seems that there’s very little known
about how exactly this is done. Learning to be a woman amidst all of my philosophy
has meant learning to stand for, and surrender to, my own deep desires and feelings,
while still maintaining discipline, clarity, and rigor. So each of my forays into
different disciplines and aspects of philosophy of mind were necessary for the
development of my thinking—both on what I wanted to say, and how I wanted to
say it.
Despite what I thought at more than one point on this journey, I love philosophy, and
I can carry it out according to what makes sense to me. And that’s how I got here.
x
Chapter One
Philosophizing must, inevitably have a historical dimension if it is to count as
philosophizing at all. ~ Frederick Copleston
What My Project Is and What It Isn’t
Because I want to be clear about what my project is and what it isn’t, first I’ll
describe some different approaches to history and clarify the approach I adopt here.
Given that there are different approaches and methodologies to writing history,
evaluating a historical work needs knowing which approach is taken and what its
aims are. There was a time before I studied historiography that I was naively under
the impression that histories are essentially “factual” accounts of what went on. My
thought was that people, events, and circumstances were, for the most part, given or
un-interpreted. I thought that anyone who sought out the historical truth about some
person or time period would come to a very similar view as any other person, given
the factual nature of these stories. This was after all, what makes the difference, I
thought, between histories and fiction—the one adheres to the facts, while the other
need not appeal to, or fit with the facts at all.
What I didn’t realize was that this isn’t at all the way history is created. My first
mistake was in not realizing that interpretation takes place at almost every level. For
example, it may be a fact that a certain ledger indicates that a transaction took place
on a specified date. But the meaning of that document exists within a nexus of other
facts and beliefs, within a perhaps implicit narrative going on in the mind of the
researcher. So that whether this document is actually relevant or not depends on the
larger story one is telling. For example, from the perspective of ancient Roman
historians, Cleopatra VII Philopater did not fit into any of the appropriate positions
for a female to occupy according to Roman culture. Perhaps because of this, she
was described in almost wholly negative terms—they saw her as an exotic, ruthless
1
seductress and a murderer. But from the standpoint of 20th century North American
feminist historian Stacy Schiff, what appears relevant and left out of such
perspectives is that Cleopatra spoke seven languages, was a shrewd strategist, and an
ingenious negotiator. The larger narrative that a historian has in mind bears heavily
on which facts appear relevant and are included in support of that story. The data
itself does not create a narrative. Narrative must go beyond data, including it and
making the case for what goes beyond it. This is one sense in which historians are
much more like constrained fiction-writers than they are cataloguers of what was the
case. Historians have a hypothesis of sorts—a story or a view about what they think
was going on, and there are varying degrees to which data supports that view, and
doesn’t.
What I also didn’t realize was that historians also have a view about what history is.
It wasn’t obvious to me that there are a great many views about what history is, what
it is for, and how best to engage in it. A historian might believe in grand-narratives.
Some familiar grand-narratives include the grand-narratives of progress or of
enlightenment emancipation. Others might believe in the “great man” story,
according to which history is explained by appeal to highly influential individuals
who had a historically decisive impact. When it comes to the history of philosophy,
depending on the nature and purpose of the project, the skills of the historian and the
skills of the philosopher are not always exercised in equal proportions.
In order to make clear what I mean, I draw a broad distinction between what I’ll call
“Historically Informed Philosophy” (HIP), and “Philosophically Oriented History”
(POH). In order to get clear on the difference between the approaches of HIP and
POH, I’d like to draw attention to the fact that there are a variety of reasons and
motivations for taking up a project in the history of philosophy. One motivation for
beginning a project in history of philosophy is to develop deeper understanding of
certain historical figures and their thinking. For example, Ray Monk’s (1991)
Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius, is a story of Wittgenstein designed to
bring insight into the man, and the philosopher. The story of Wittgenstein cannot be
2
told without some deep examination of his philosophical work. Because of this, the
development of his thought has to be incorporated, explicated, and interpreted within
the larger story of his life and intellectual development. Doing this work requires
both historical, as well as philosophical skills. In this case, understanding,
interpreting, and reconstructing Wittgenstein’s texts in terms of the historical
circumstances of its production, as well as its propagation and reception, is
particularly important. The author of this kind of work looks for, among other
things, sources, causes, or motives for what is said in the text. But in this example,
the aim is to understand Wittgenstein, as opposed to reach for the truth about the
nature of reality, or language, which were Wittgenstein’s concerns. Usually in a
work like this, the historian looks not for the arguments, as much as she looks for the
sources, or causes, or extra-philosophical motives that might have moved the thinker
for taking on the views that they did (Kenny, 2005, 22-23). In other words, in
Philosophically Oriented History (POH) the interest is in the fact that such-and-such
was or was not Wittgenstein’s view, as well as the circumstances he was in such that
he held those views.
By way of contrast, a historian of philosophy might also aim to develop a deeper
understanding of a philosophical problem. In this case the researcher seeks out
insight into a view or argument, as opposed to focusing on the details of a particular
philosopher. I call work undertaken with this aim, Historically Informed Philosophy
(HIP). Tom Lennon’s (1993) The Battle of the Gods and Giants: The Legacies of
Descartes and Gassendi, 1655-1715 is an illustrative example of this kind of
approach. In this book, Lennon argues for a major reinterpretation of Early Modern
history. Lennon’s aim is to show that the contest between the Cartesians and the
supporters of Gassendi was the most important philosophical debate of the latter half
of the seventeenth century. He argues that the views of both sides of the debate
proposed opposing views on space and the objects in it, and that these implied
important moral and political differences. The conflict was typical of Plato’s battle
of the gods and giants –those who were friends of the forms, and the materialists.
It’s not that who thought what is unimportant for this study. Certainly the details of
3
who thought what are relevant. But the author emphasizes the arguments and
positions themselves, and this approach does not emphasize the details of those who
espoused the views. It is a matter of historical interest to discover which thinker took
which position, but it is a matter of philosophical interest what a view actually is, or
entails. In HIP, the larger aim is to establish a deeper understanding of the way that
arguments may appear and be deployed within a particular context.
It’s important to remember that the distinction that I’ve drawn is broad, and that in
practice, a text may rely heavily on both philosophical and historical methods, and
that it may aim at a variety of purposes. For example, in writing POH, the historian
of philosophy interprets and paraphrases the views of those they write about, at the
same time that they speculate and provide reasons why these thinkers might have
held the views that they did. In order to interpret a view, the historian may make
speculations about tacit premises left out of arguments, and evaluate the cogency and
coherence of those arguments and of the inferences that were drawn. Likewise, HIP
requires its author to interpret, explain, and describe historical factors that have
bearing on the philosophical work in question. An important distinguishing feature
between POH and HIP is the extent to which each makes use of context.
Understanding how certain thoughts became possible, and made sense in the minds
of figures in question, depends very much on situating that person within their
historical context. Because of this, a POH study must be highly contextualized.
This is key for understanding what a thinker’s view meant to that person, as opposed
to what it means in the present context. The role of context remains important,
though less so, in HIP. In either approach close reading, and interpretation of the text
is essential. Exegesis is the kernel of history of philosophy.
What my project is not is philosophically oriented history (POH). In other words,
my larger aim is not to make the case that a particular thinker did indeed hold a
particular view, and I don’t spend a lot of time giving reasons and evidence about an
individual’s life that might make that case more plausible. It is not the thinkers as
individuals that are of ultimate importance to me. My project is Historically
4
Informed Philosophy (HIP). What this means is that my larger aim is to develop
deeper understanding and clarification of philosophical positions, as opposed to
those who held them. I am less interested in reasons why a philosopher might have
held a view than I am in how a particular view has advanced philosophical
understanding, or how the way a view has been received or not received has
impacted the longer discussion on that issue.
To provide a preview, which I’ll go into in more detail later: my interest is in coming
to a deeper understanding of the ways that the unit-ideas of empiricism and the New
Science influenced the way that aspects of mind were theorized in the Hobbes,
Locke, and Hume. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 are case studies: the first deals with Hobbes
on mental architecture; the second is focused on Locke on free will; and the third
clarifies a misinterpretation of Hume. Along with clarifying the role of these unitideas in explaining aspects of mind, this project seeks also thereby to develop deeper
appreciation and understanding of each of these three thinkers.
What Are Unit-Ideas?
I take the term ‘unit-ideas’ from Arthur O. Lovejoy’s 1936 landmark work, The
Great Chain of Being: A Study in the History of an Idea. In that work, Lovejoy
expands on the concept of ‘unit-ideas’ as they pertain to a HIP-style historical study
like mine. In working with unit-ideas, old arguments and views are broken up into
their component parts. Those component parts can then be re-examined in a
different organization. It divides material up in a different way, bringing the parts
into new relations, and viewing it from the standpoint of a specific purpose
(Lovejoy, 3). For example, in The Great Chain of Being Lovejoy analyzes the
origins of the ideas of plenitude, continuity, and graduation in the philosophies of
Plato, Aristotle, and the Neoplatonists. He traces the most significant of their
ramifications in subsequent religious thinking, in ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics,
as well as in astronomical and biological theories.
5
Unit-ideas can appear disguised in different regions of the intellectual world, and
they can be traced through multiple phases of reflection. The aim is to trace them to
their historical sources, and to observe their fusion. Through doing this, we may
take note of some of the most significant influences, and to see how later generations
may have derived conclusions from them that are very different from what their
originators might have thought (21). This process can reveal the fact that theoretical
systems that appear disparate are actually quite similar, and clarify the ways that
similar systems are different. It can also show that the different logical
combinations of elements of a philosophical doctrine are not always readily
recognizable (4). 1
Broader Perspective, Enriched Conceptual Resources
& Revealed Assumptions
Gaining broader perspective is an important outcome achieved by analyzing
philosophical work through the lens of unit-ideas. What readers may achieve is a
livelier sense of the fact that most philosophical systems are original or distinctive in
their patterns, rather than in their components. In looking at the views of mind
offered by Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, what I find is that, uncovering their similar
presuppositions, we see that what might appear very disparate at the surface level is
actually very similar at a deeper, more fundamental level. These thinkers accepted
similar components, and what differed was the degree to which they were committed
to a particular view, as well as the patterns in which the ideas appeared.
Appreciation of the fact that most systems are not unique or new in terms of their
components is very helpful when it comes to identifying and situating evolved
iterations of those ideas. As a result, we gain broader perspective on the shape(s) of
views of mind produced by the combination of empiricism and New Science. As a
result, we’re in a very good position to identify problems and benefits of new
1
There has been some debate over Lovejoy’s methodology, particularly over what
constitutes a unit-idea, however, I leave those debates aside here.
6
iterations or patterns comprised of these units. The ability to recognize new patterns
of familiar components is one way in which a broader perspective is gained.
Conceptual resources are enriched by the development of genuine understanding of
the landmark positions that frame contemporary discussions. Oftentimes concepts
are at play in contemporary discussions, but the genealogy of these concepts is not
understood. This is important because the way that a concept or framework
develops over time can point to an otherwise unseen aspect of a larger view. For
example, Locke’s account of liberty and volition involves tensions that are inherent
to the marrying of an account of volition that has power—which is to say, an
account of volition that is not passive—and a mechanistic-style framework. Locke’s
work on volition informs what might motivate a thinker to adopt a determinist,
compatibilist, or libertarian view of volition, working from within a mechanical
empiricist framework. Thinking of volition as having power in Locke’s sense is
important – but without looking at what this meant and why it was considered that
way leaves parts of that notion opaque and not as easily handled. In uncovering the
stages of evolution of certain concepts, we may attend more carefully to their
philosophical significance. Changes in perspective may also engender doubt whether
we are wholly immune from different but equally great confusions.
In addition to enriched conceptual resources and broader horizons, this approach
also helps develop deeper understanding of underlying assumptions. Assumptions
are often too familiar to be easily noticed; they may be deeply embedded, un-argued
for, or un-avowed. Identifying these assumptions can help us to ask better questions,
diagnose current ills, and attend more perceptively to the ways that philosophers
have been “received.” For example, in my case study on Hobbes, I question
assumptions around the way that Hobbes has been received – or more accurately,
has not been received—as a bona fide philosopher of mind. Taking Hobbes seriously
as a philosopher of mind helps to re-orient contemporary empiricist approaches to
explaining mind within a long-standing tradition. From within that tradition, it is
easier to evaluate the advances, as well as the problems still facing those views. In
7
considering new ways of receiving historical figures such as Hobbes, we may resituate the way we think about how the story continues. This is just one example of
how we may notice and question assumptions that may be implicit and unarticulated.
The Particulars of My Study
Now that I have said what kind of study mine is and what it isn’t, discussed the
value of the approach of unit-ideas, and referred briefly to my study’s specific focus,
I can be more direct about the particulars of my study. The main question under
discussion is how mind can fit into the world as it was revealed by the New Science
broadly construed, and within an empiricist approach? There are two overarching
aims to this exploration.
The aim of this study is to come to a fuller, deeper appreciation of these
relationships amongst the unit-ideas of empiricism, the New Science, and aspects of
mind in order to gain enriched conceptual resources, broader perspective, and deeper
understanding of underlying assumptions. On the one hand, this involves
highlighting how these connections among New Science, empiricism, and mind are
mutually supporting, and why. On the other hand, there are also tensions that seem
to be inherent to these constellations. In order to highlight both of these, I have
chosen to explore these ideas in three case studies, looking at portions of the texts of
Hobbes, Locke, and Hume. This project is structured both chronologically and
thematically, and each case study is presented in a separate article. I begin with the
most distant thinker, and take them in chronological order: Hobbes, then Locke, and
finally, Hume. This helps to clarify how some aspects of concepts and views
evolved in response to objections that were raised to previous patterns and iterations.
In the first paper, I look at how Hobbes’ particular conception of empiricism and his
version of the New Science support one another in his account of mental
architecture. While Hobbes has not been received as a philosopher of mind so much
as a political philosopher, his theory of mind is surprisingly sophisticated. Even so,
8
it faces some very important problems and objections. Hobbes was Descartes’
contemporary, and while both philosophers put primary importance on
epistemology, with well-articulated theories of mind, the one has gone down in
history as a highly significant thinker on mind, while the other has gone all but
unnoticed in that area. This is unfortunate. One benefit of attending to Hobbes as a
quintessential empiricist philosopher of mind is that the challenges and benefits of
Descartes’ theory of mind come into greater relief by comparison. The problems
and advantages of characteristic rationalist and empiricist attempts at explaining
mind create deeper understanding of both.
In the second paper my focus turns to Locke’s ever-evolving account of volition and
liberty. Locke’s Chapter 13 entitled, of Power is the most vigorously revised and
edited portions of his Essay. In that chapter, Locke works to produce an account of
freedom and volition that squares with his New Scientific and empiricist
commitments. As he moves deeper into the problem, his account of freedom
becomes increasingly libertarian, and this creates increasing tension with his
scientific worldview. The end result is a text that has troubled commentators since
the time of its publication. While many commentators have sought to defend
Locke’s reputation by reading consistency into the text, my approach is different. I
find value in the way that Locke laid bare some of the very real tensions inherent to
the combination of features of the New Science, empiricism, and mind. For that
reason, Locke ought to be considered an intellectual hero, struggling with genuine
difficulties, rather than having produced a consistent text that he for some reason,
neglected to make explicitly consistent.
In the third and final paper, I apply some of the lessons learned from the first two
papers, about the way that different aspects and features of the New Science and
empiricism interact in explanations of mind. In doing this, I take on Stephen
Buckle’s recent argument that Hume ought to be considered a covert materialist,
given the similarity that his view of mind holds to Hobbes’ view. The error Buckle
makes is illustrative of the kind of mistake one might make without appreciating the
9
role of variation in a thinker’s conception of the New Science and of empiricism. I
argue that in fact, Hume should not be considered a covert materialist—at least not
for the reasons Buckle provides.
Two Key Notions: Empiricism & New Science
Both empiricism and the New Science are complex, imprecise notions that include a
range of features, and that admit of a range of gradations. A thinker can be
committed to each of these notions in varying degrees, as well as in varying aspects.
I begin by providing background on empiricism as a general approach, and then
describe some sub-varieties of empiricism. Following that, I provide some general
remarks about the New Science, followed by some of its characteristic features.
Traditionally, empiricism is the idea that all knowledge rests on a foundation of
sense experience 2. Another formulation of empiricism is that there is nothing in the
mind that is not first in the senses. It’s important to be clear about the difference
between empiricism and the empirical. Rationalists like Descartes value and make
use of empirical information. At the same time, empiricism does not deny the
possibility or significance of knowledge that comes from reflection or internal
experiences. The important difference between empiricism and rationalism lies in
their orientation toward sensation. The basic orientation of empiricism is toward
sensation as foundational for knowledge. By way of contrast, the basic orientation
of rationalism is away from sensation as a foundation of knowledge.
Some of the sub-varieties, or aspects, of empiricism derive from what one is
empiricist about. For instance, one can be an empiricist about psychological
development. As mentioned, one might be empiricist about the source of mental
2
Empiricists may hold a variety of positions on metaphysical matters, since
empiricism is a view about what knowledge is, and how it can be acquired. For
example, one can be a materialist empiricist, as is Hobbes; an idealist empiricist, as
is Berkeley, or metaphysically agnostic as is Hume. Empiricism itself remains silent
about metaphysical matters.
10
content, believing that this derives from sensory experience. On this model, the
mind is “empty” until the senses come into contact with the external environment.
One might also be empiricist about mental development, whereby cognitive
development takes place as the gradual acquisition of knowledge through
experience. Both of these would be aspects of empiricism that apply to the
psychological. That is, one could, for example, believe that to have any mental
contents requires experience with the external world, while mental processes are
innate. On the other hand, one could believe that both mental contents and mental
processes are the result of contact of the sensory organs with the world. What all
empiricist approaches have in common, however, is that they emphasize the
importance, and the role of sensory experience in knowledge. Another sub-variety
of empiricism pertains to justification. To be empiricist about justification is to think
that the ground, or warrant for a belief has its foundation in sensory experience.
Empiricism about justification may apply variously to philosophy of psychology,
individual epistemology, and philosophy of science. In the case of individual
epistemology, empiricism grounds the justification of individuals’ beliefs in
experience. One way that this relates to science is that what it is that justifies what
constitutes a legitimate scientific methodology relies on appeal to experience. This
applies specifically in philosophy of psychology. In the case of philosophy of
psychology, empiricism about justification means that claims about mental
development are justified only on empirical grounds. In each of these varieties of
empiricism, one might hold this view in varying degrees. For instance, it is possible
to hold the position that empirical support from sensory experience is necessary but
not sufficient, or that empirical support is both necessary and sufficient for
justification.
The second key idea that requires some explication is the New Science. The New
Science was a movement that was a rival and replacement for the Aristotelianism of
the medieval period, and which dominated physical theory from the 1630’s to the
middle of the 18th Century. The Modern period was witness to a self-conscious move
away from Scholastic models of explanation that were rooted in Aristotle’s “first
11
qualities.” On this model, “first qualities” were thought to be the causes of the
properties and behaviour of bodies. For example, sensible warmth might be thought
to be caused by heat. During the medieval period, this kind of explanation was
considered both satisfactory, and complete. But by the late 17th century, this model
of explanation had become the object of not only literary satire, but also philosophic
critique (Nadler 1998, 517-18). This kind of explanation came to be considered
outmoded, occult, and mystical (Boas and Hall, 1959, 168). Boyle, for one, thought
that explaining white colouration by means of ‘whiteness,’ failed to make any
progress in advancing our understanding of the phenomenon. It merely repeated the
property or behaviour in a hypostasized form (Nadler, 527). Bacon thought this kind
of explanation did nothing other than report on the fact that one type of change
occurs in one kind of circumstance, while another type of change occurs in another
sort of circumstance (Falkenstein, 1). An important problem with the Aristotelian
view is that knowledge of the way substances work has to be discovered one by one,
in experimentation. The task of finding out about the world by experimenting in
various circumstances was an impossibly large research project. Cutting down on the
amount of empirical work necessary to gain power over nature was an important
reason for reconsidering this approach (Falkenstein, 2).
By way of contrast with the Scholastics, Modern thinkers sought simple, non-trivial
explanations about the causes of phenomena by describing not only how and why the
phenomenon happened as it did, but also why it did not happen otherwise (Nadler,
520). They shifted away from the view of active powers in nature, toward a view of
nature that is passive and inert, which removed the mysterious, occult forces or
qualities that would need to be discovered one by one by experience and
experimentation. This movement toward an inert view of nature ushered in a
strategy for explanation that hearkened back to the ancient atomists. Ease of
explanation could be achieved by positing that nature was comprised of tiny
homogenous particles in motion, governed by universal laws. Movement and change
took place in a way that was modeled by macro objects, like billiard balls. Movement
and change were thus explained in terms of mechanism. Mechanism is the view that
12
phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws governing the motion and
collision of matter. Macro-level properties were to be explained in terms of microlevel properties. Mechanisms were thought to show how things work, to reveal the
activities by which phenomena are truly brought into being, and to show how things
actually are in nature, not just in our understanding. It is contrasted with vitalism and
teleology.
This view of the movement of homogenous particles governed by “laws” of nature
was a significant part of the mechanization of the world-picture. It is important to
note that such accounts were more or less hypothetical. This is because the structures
employed in explanations were inaccessible to observation, given their minute size. 3
Another feature of the New Science is its move away from an authoritarian approach
to knowledge (Aristotelianism) and a move toward an anti-authoritarian approach to
knowledge. Knowledge was something that could be sought and attained by anyone,
provided they used what were believed to be the proper method(s) to attain it. In
addition to this, there was a movement away from explanations that made appeals to
final causes, or teleological explanations (although many such accounts were entirely
consistent with the notion of God). Only efficient causes were recognized or
required for explanation. The mechanization of the world-picture also featured the
introduction of geometrical concepts, as well as the mathematical concepts of
classical mechanics, and a new emphasis on a central role of quantification in
understanding nature.
3
Mechanical explanations might be thought as somewhat occult for the reason that
corpuscles are not observed, but instead are theoretical posits. While Seventeenthcentury mechanists generally recognized the hypothetical nature of their
explanations, this tended not to diminish their confidence, and their absolute
certainty in their conclusions (Nadler, 521). This picture of the world was not
derived from the phenomena (Boas and Hall, 168).
13
Sub-variety of Empiricism
What is approached empirically
Justification
Philosophy of psychology (The science of mental development)
Individual epistemology (Grounding justification of individuals’
beliefs)
Philosophy of science (Scientific methodology)
Psychology
Source of mental contents
Mental development over time
The source of mental mechanisms
Table 1
New Science
Rival & replacement for Aristotelianism
Anti-authoritarian in tenor
Nature
Natural world entirely passive
Motion/change is not actualization of some power in the
substance itself
Elimination of powers from all natural substances
Mode of explanation
Macro-level properties explained in terms of lower level ones
Removal of occult forces and powers
Mechanism
Mechanization of world-picture
Nature described with mathematical/geometrical concepts
Particles
Simple, unified, deterministic, quantifiable
Causation
Only efficient causes recognized or required
Rejection of teleology and final causes
Cartesian New Science
Science is demonstrative as a series of valid deductions from
(Rationalist)
self-evident truths, rather than as something rooted in
observation and experiment.
14
Starting point for science and physics is the existence of God (as
described in Discourse on Method)
Newtonian New Science
Self-conscious turn away from Cartesian scientific methodology
(Experimental Philosophy)
Denies the metaphysics of essences
Refrains from formulating hypotheses
Admits no more causes of natural things than such as are both
true and sufficient to explain their appearances
Whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is rejected
Whether metaphysical, physical, based on occult qualities, or
mechanical, hypotheses have no place in experimental
philosophy
Table 2
Summary
I wish to remind my reader that my aim is to gain clarity around the ways in which
empiricism, the New Science, and aspects of mind are mutually supporting, as well
as the tensions that are inherent in this constellation of ideas. My approach to this
historical work is what I’ve called Historically Informed Philosophy (HIP) as
opposed to Philosophically Oriented History (POH), so while I recognize the
significance of context, this is not a highly contextualized approach. Instead, it is a
close look at specific unit-ideas as they are expressed in a few key texts from
Hobbes, Locke, and Hume.
A Final Caveat: Errors May Lie in Wait
for We Non-Specialists
Because studies that look at unit-ideas tend to cut across multiple fields, they are
written and designed for a mixed academic audience, not for specialists in a single
15
field. It’s important to keep in mind that there certain kinds of errors that lie in wait
for the non-specialist. For example, a non-specialist looking at historical figures is
bound to exclude some of the nuance and subtlety that might appear in a specialized
interpretation and analysis. This is necessary in order to achieve the right level of
generality to make claims that are more generally applicable. In other words, detail
gets lost as we move away from the highly specialized view. But there are also
virtues that are involved with moving away from the highly specialized perspective.
Certain problems can’t be understood or resolved by looking too closely at a
problem. The trick is to find the right level of generality that a problem requires.
There are many valuable outcomes that can be achieved despite missing out on some
detail and nuance.
In this study, there are several contributory outcomes I’m aiming at. In making a
contribution to the history of philosophy, one aim is to find ways of re-imagining
past thinkers. This involves releasing an old image of a thinker, and replacing it
with something new and different. In the case of Hobbes, for example, I aim to
bring new light to the value and importance of Hobbes’ work in philosophy of mind.
This can have important implications and influence on the way we read Hobbes’
social and political work. Another example is the new image that I offer of Locke’s
work on liberty and the will. While this part of his corpus is usually seen as
troubled, and perhaps even a source of embarrassment for Locke, I offer a
celebratory view that focuses on the values that arise from the tensions created in
Locke’s account. When we re-imagine past figures we can mine their work for more
value. Another consequence is that it becomes possible to put to bed old debates. In
the case of Locke for example, I make the case that it’s not necessary to seek out
Locke’s final position and trying to fit him into one of the three main categories in
the free will debate. Instead, we can simply recognize that he doesn’t fit into any of
those categories, and move on to more useful questions.
In making a contribution to philosophy of mind, my aim is to help to reorient some
issues of debate by focusing on its historical dimensions. If contemporary issues are
16
relevantly similar to the ones I discuss from the Modern period, then the potential is
there to mine the past for more value, and to gain a greater understanding of what
does, and does not work about a particular view. The historical dimension is an
important and even necessary filter for analysis. Showing how exactly this is so
often requires a close and detailed look at a relatively small issue, and drawing it out
through to the contemporary context.
17
Works Cited
Boas, Marie, & Hall, Rupert. “Newton’s ‘Mechanical Principles’ in Journal of the
History of Ideas, 04/1959, 20. 2, pp. 167-178.
Falkenstein, Lorne. “Modern Philosophy.” Philosophy eBook Collection,
2010. http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/philosophyebooks/1 Web, 2016.
Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature: A Critical Edition. Ed. David Fate
Norton, and Mary J. Norton. Oxford Clarendon Press, 2011. Print.
Kenny, Anthony. “The Philosopher’s History and the History of Philosophy.” Eds.
Tom Sorrell and G. A. J. Rogers. Analytic Philosophy and History of
Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005. 13-24. Print.
Lennon, Tom. The Battle of the Gods and Giants: The Legacies of Descartes and
Gassendi 1655-1715, Princeton University Press, 1993. Print.
Lovejoy, Arthur O. The Great Chain of Being: A Study in the History of an Idea.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1936. Print.
Nadler, Steven. “Doctrines of explanation in late scholasticism and in the mechanical
Philosophy.” The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy
Volume I, Cambridge University Press: 2008. 512-552.
Monk, Ray. Ludwig Wittgenstain: The Duty of Genius, New York: Penguin Books,
1991. Print.
18
Chapter Two
Hobbesian Mental Architecture
The habits of an elementary particle of matter cannot change… the particle is itself
an unchangeable thing ~ William James, The Principles of Psychology
It is interesting to notice how some philosophers gain the adoration—or infamy—of
posterity, while others lay by the wayside. And it might seem that there are always
good reasons why this should be so—that one thinker’s view is superior to another’s,
or that an idea resonates more during one time period versus another. For example,
it might seem that there must be good reason why Hobbes is mostly passed over in
favour of Descartes in the traditional history of the philosophy of mind. Twentieth
and twenty-first century philosophers frequently recount this history beginning with
Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy. Even when it had become fashionable
to treat Descartes as the favoured whipping boy and to blame him for setting us off
on the wrong footing, at least his view was well known, and at least reasonably well
understood by contemporary philosophers of mind. Not so, for Hobbes.
Although Hobbes was Descartes’ contemporary, and despite the fact they had some
very interesting and important exchanges on issues of mind, Hobbes’ theory of mind
is seldom mentioned or given much attention. For example, in “Mind-body
problems” by Daniel Garber and Margaret Wilson (2008), Hobbes is mentioned only
as being an outlier to the more mainstream dualist views of people like Descartes. In
this case, Hobbes is ignored because he is not typical or representative, and the view
is that in the 17th century, he can safely be ignored. And because he is typical or
representative in the contemporary context, his view is pedestrian and can therefore
be ignored. Perez Zagorin’s (1990) recent meta-analysis of the Hobbes literature
shows that Hobbes is universally regarded as a quintessential political theorist, and a
19
prime moral philosopher (317). His view of mind, however, is almost completely
absent from the meta-analysis.
One reason why it might seem reasonable that Hobbes is largely neglected in his
views on mind is that the particulars of his view are out of step with modern
concerns. But in fact, this seems less true for Hobbes than it does for Descartes.
Cartesian substance dualism is largely out of fashion. At the same time, Hobbes’
materialism and empiricism seem much more aligned with contemporary approaches
to mind. Hobbes’ theory of mind actually appears to fit quite nicely with modern
approaches. On the other hand, it might be supposed that the reason why we tend to
look to Descartes for epistemology and metaphysics, while on the other hand,
looking to Hobbes for political and moral philosophy, is because of the
predominance of epistemology in present-day concerns. This is Sadler’s view
(1990, 1099). But neither does this seem to be borne out by the facts. It is true that
Descartes explicitly set out to “expound the basis” upon which “all human certainty
can be founded,” and this puts his epistemological agenda front and centre. And it is
also true that Hobbes’ project was to justify political principles by appeal to the
agreement that suitably situated, rational, free, and equal persons would make. But
Hobbes’ moral and political theory is explicitly based on his view of the mind of
man 4. This includes, importantly, what can be known, and how it can be known.
For example, Hobbes begins his treatise on The Elements of Law with the statement
that the explication of the elements of laws depend in part on knowledge of what
human nature is (1). The Elements of Law, De Cive, and Leviathan each share a
structure that begins with questions about mind and works towards questions in
political philosophy. A scientific account of human nature and volition was the
foundation of Hobbes’ civil philosophy (Overhoff, 113). What appears front and
4
A note on gendered language: Since Hobbes refers to human beings as “man” I
maintain this language myself when referring to Hobbes’ view. I adopt this practice
to avoid anachronistically attributing to Hobbes a neutral position on gender, which I
don’t think is warranted. This should not be read as an implicit endorsement of the
practice of referring to all humans as “man”, but instead as an attempt to remain
historically accurate.
20
centre in Hobbes’ corpus is his political and moral philosophy, but Hobbes’
approach to mind is neither more, nor less epistemologically driven than is
Descartes’, even if their ultimate agendas were rather different.
Another reason why it might seem justified to neglect Hobbes’ view of mind is
because his physics turned out to be terribly mistaken. It is true that in fact, motion
does not take place at all in the way that Hobbes thinks it does. Hobbes has gained
some notoriety for the weakness of his physics. But this is not a problem that is
unique to Hobbes. For example, Descartes’ physics turns out also to be very much
mistaken, as was the physical view of many of the thinkers in this time period. A
mistaken physics is not enough of a reason to fail to take Hobbes’ view seriously.
If Hobbes’ view of mind ought not to be neglected because it’s out of step with
modern concerns, perhaps it is neglected because it hasn’t been considered very
good, and isn’t worthy of much consideration. Perhaps Hobbes’ view of mind was
just naïve and simplistic. Hobbes was a materialist who thought that everything
could be explained in terms of matter and motion. At first glance, it looks as though
Hobbes might face some serious difficulties in explaining the complexity of mind
with such austere conceptual resources. How can something as complex and diverse
as cognitive architecture be explained with only homogenous particles and
movement?
In this paper, I take this last concern very seriously, and look at how well Hobbes is
able to explain the complexity of mental architecture in terms only of matter and
motion. I argue that, in fact, Hobbes accounts for the complexity of mind
surprisingly well. Hobbes’ view of mind is sophisticated, and worthy of more
consideration. While he does face some important difficulties, these are difficulties
that are not unique to his view.
21
The Game Plan
With this in mind, my interest is in taking a closer look at the way empiricism and
the New Science gave shape to mental architecture according to Hobbes. I begin first
by covering some key background conceptions, including the heterogeneity of the
mental and some standard approaches taken to account for it. I then explicate
Hobbes’ unique flavours of both empiricism and the New Science, and lay out the
picture of mind that Hobbes offers, which stems out of these commitments. From
there, I analyze the view, highlighting some of the surprising successes, as well as
one very difficult problem that it faces.
Background Notions: Innate Heterogeneity, Innate
Homogeneity, Derived Heterogeneity
Mental life appears to be characterized by several different parts, functions,
faculties, or modules. These different functions have been labeled differently, and
have been taxonomized in different ways. In other words, there is a certain level of
complexity, or heterogeneity to the mental. For example, mind is made up
offunctions like thought, imagination, memory, volition, and perception. There are
various ways that a theorist might deal with the complexity of mental life, namely,
innate heterogeneity, innate homogeneity, and derived heterogeneity. The first
approach to the apparent complexity of the mind is to assert that the mind is
fundamentally heterogeneous. This is to say that the mind is, by nature, made up of
different parts. This possibility would not be available to a thinker, like Hobbes, who
proposes that the micro-level is comprised of homogenous particles. The second
approach, at the opposite end of the spectrum, is a complete denial of the
heterogeneity of mind. On this view, mind is thought of as a general purpose
learning and reasoning machine. The view that the mind is “completely
homogenous” is a denial of any real distinction between parts of mind. A
22
philosopher like Hobbes, who acknowledges various parts of the mind working
together does not have this option available. A final approach to this issue is derived
heterogeneity. On this view, the mind is made up out of homogenous stuff, but at
the higher level, it also has different parts that work together in the larger
phenomena of mind. Given Hobbes’ commitments to the heterogeneity of the mind,
as well as to the kind of explanation that appeals to homogenous particles, he needs
to tell a story of how we get derived heterogeneity of mind. 5
Hobbes’ Empiricism
The specific nature of Hobbes’ pre-theoretic commitments to both empiricism and
the New Science is important for understanding how these commitments shape his
theory of mind. One of the simplest and most general ways of thinking about
empiricism is that it emphasizes the role of the sensory in the production of
knowledge. While thinkers generally understood to belong to the rationalist
tradition tend to acknowledge the importance of input from the sensory, they do not
hold to the stronger view that empiricists do, namely that the sensory is necessary
for knowledge, if there can be any knowledge. For rationalists, there are some kinds
of knowledge—knowledge of mathematical concepts, for instance—which do not
require sensory experience. Indeed, there are some kinds of knowledge that can’t be
obtained through sensory experience. Empiricists, on the other hand are
characterized by the general view that the sensory is necessary for knowledge,
although they may differ on the issue of whether the sensory is also sufficient for
knowledge. In other words, empiricists come in varying degrees of strength,
although they all emphasize the role of the sensory in knowledge.
5
There are two senses in which heterogeneity might be ‘derived.’ The first is
developmental. This is so say that psychological development involves the
evolution of increasing complexity of internal mechanisms, abilities, and
experiences. The other sense is metaphysical. This is to say that the stuff out of
which mind is made is itself complex. While I recognize this distinction, I leave it
aside here.
23
As an empiricist, Hobbes is an interesting case. Hobbes is an empiricist in the sense
that he does clearly and explicitly emphasize the role of the sensory in the
production of knowledge. Throughout his works, Hobbes consistently takes
sensation as the starting point of his theory of mind. For example, in Leviathan
(1651) he writes, “there is no conception in a man’s mind which hath not at first,
totally, or by part, been begotten upon the organs of sense. The rest are derived from
that original” (1). The senses are at the front and centre of his view. He is an
empiricist particularly as it pertains to individual epistemology, and psychological
development, including both content, and psychological processes. Sensory learning
is king in terms of Hobbes’ view of psychological development. Thought requires
sensory experience—there are no mental contents without sensory experience.
Hobbes’ account of action, which I will briefly outline below, also requires the
combination of thought and passion—both having originated in sensation.
Deliberate action is, therefore, dependent on sensory experience. Because of this,
the action required to enter, and engage in civil life, are all based on a foundation of
sensation. Hobbes’ empiricist leanings also appear in his political philosophy in
other ways, too. Hobbes asserts that the assumptions he uses in civil philosophy can
be confirmed by experience. He also insists on civil histories – records of
experience—to support the conclusions of civil philosophy (Sorell, 140). In many
key and standard ways, Hobbes is a paradigm of an empiricist.
On the other hand, Hobbes exhibits some rationalist leanings in other areas of his
work, particularly in his view of science. Hobbes’ differences with the Royal Society
over scientific method raised the question to what extent he is an empiricist in
philosophy of science. While Hobbes emphasizes the influence of experience on
thought, imagination and passion, he also tended to think that it was necessary to
correct and revise experience by reason, in order to benefit people (Sorell, 134).
What’s more, for Hobbes, experiment is not essential to science. He believes, for
example, that if doing so helped explain a natural phenomenon, it is perfectly
legitimate to postulate types of motion beyond the reach of the senses (134). The
impression that Hobbes had “anti-empiricist” leanings is supported by examination
24
of Hobbes’ method of physics, which does not give observation an important role, as
described in Decameron Physiologicum (1678). The way Hobbes emphasizes reason
in the scientific method is also apparent in Elements of Philosophy (1656), Part 1,
section 4:
[T]o those that search after Science indefinitely, which consists in the
knowledge of the Causes of all things, as far forth as it may be attained,
and the causes of Singular things are compounded by the Causes of
Universal or Simple things, it is necessary that they know the Causes of
Universal things, or of such Accidents as are common to all Bodies,
that is, to all Matter, before they can know their Causes…Moreover,
seeing Universal things are contained in the Nature of Singular things,
the knowledge of them is to be acquired by Reason, that is, by
Resolution (50).
Hobbes’ unique position regarding empiricism and rationalism brings out an
important point that warrants emphasizing. There is a variety of different ways in
which one can adhere to empiricism and rationalism. As mentioned above, one
might be an empiricist about justification, but a rationalist about psychological
development. It is also possible, for example, to be rationalist about individual
epistemology at the same time as being empiricist about justification. It might be
thought that these categories of position are mutually exclusive, and it’s not possible,
without inconsistency, to hold both rationalist and empiricist positions at the same
time. But it becomes clear that’s not so once we recognize that there are a variety of
ways in which these distinctions apply. What’s more, these positions are graded.
This is to say that one can be more, or less extreme in holding to rationalism or
empiricism. For example, Hobbes certainly emphasized the role of sensation in
important parts of his view, and yet he took a softer view in other areas. In terms of
gradation, Hume is much more extreme in his empiricism than is Hobbes. At the
same time, there isn’t complete overlap between the two thinkers regarding what
they are empiricist about. There is a variety of axes along which these positions can
25
be measured. Hume is more deeply empiricist in terms of what he thinks empiricism
applies to, and the extent to which he is committed to empiricism in each case.
Hobbes’ New Science
In his allegiance to the New Science, Hobbes is much more a standard case. Hobbes’
views about nature and science are heavily influenced by Galileo, and other
scientific innovators (Sorell, 133), and he made great efforts to distance himself
from the Aristotelian tradition. He eschews talk of formal and final causes and
provides explanations in terms of efficient causation and mechanism. Carlin (2009)
calls Hobbes an “unrelenting mechanist” (33). In essence, this means that for
Hobbes, all natural change is explained in terms of the mathematical properties of
matter in accordance with the laws of nature. He believes that motion, in the sense of
change of place of bodies or their parts, is a single universal cause of all difference
and change. In Hobbes’ worldview, nature is passive and deterministic.
He is also a materialist, and thinks that, like the natural world, the mind is comprised
of tiny particles—everything that exists for Hobbes is matter in motion. In the
preface to the reader of Dialogus Physicus (1661), Hobbes writes, “Nature does all
things by the conflict of bodies pressing each other mutually with their motions.”
Hobbes thinks that no body can move itself, and that bodies are moved only by
another body in motion that comes into contact with them. Everything that exists is
extended, or is found together with extension. Thus, there are no “ghostly”
substances to be appealed to in order to explain phenomena such as the mental. As a
consequence, mind was also found with extension. This will be taken up in the
following section.
26
Hobbes’ Mental Architecture:
Conceptions, Imagination, and Dreams
Given that Hobbes allows himself only matter and motion, and that he is an
empiricist in certain respects, as explained above, how well is he able to account for
the heterogeneity of the mental? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to
get a clear grasp of his conception of mind. That’s what this section is about. Here,
I will outline how Hobbes explained mind, and how he saw the varying parts of
mind working together, yet all ultimately comprised of tiny moving homogenous
particles.
The general picture of mind that Hobbes set forth is that tiny particles, or atoms,
make contact with the sense organs. Hobbes thinks there are two kinds of motion:
rectilinear and curvilinear. When a particle makes contact with a sense organ, its
motion creates an impression, or a motion “inward” into the body. Conceptions can
be either thoughts or passions, depending on where they are located in the body. If
they are located in the head they are thoughts, and if they are located in the heart,
they are passions. It is in the nature of Hobbes’ conception of curvilinear motion that
over time, this motion “winds down” or decays. What this means is that once the
objects making contact with the sense organs are no longer present, the conceptions
in the mind have a limited shelf life, and over time they begin to decay. Because of
this, mental images begin to become more obscure. This “decaying sense” is what
he calls imagination. He writes,
any object being removed from our eyes, though the impression it
made in us remain, yet other objects more present succeeding and
working on us, the imagination of the past is obscured, and made
weak, as the voice of a man is in the noise of the day. From whence
it followeth that the longer the time is, after the sight or sense of any
27
object, the weaker is the imagination. (Hobbes, Leviathan, 88).
For Hobbes, when we signify that the sense is decaying, we call it “memory.”
Imagination and memory are one and the same—namely, they are those things
formerly perceived by the senses—understood by two different names. Hobbes
thinks that a lot of memory is what we call “experience.” Imagination that is raised
by words or signs is called “understanding.” Dreams are imagination that takes
place while asleep. Since the brain and nerves—the organs of sense—are
“benumbed” in sleep, dreams are the “agitation of the inward parts of man’s body”
and these motions, which are imaginations made previously. Dreams are,
what proceeds from the agitation of the inward parts of man’s body;
which inward parts, for the connection they have with the brain and
other organs, when they be distempered, do keep the same in
motion; whereby the imaginations there formerly made, appear as if
a man were waking (ibid).
Because dreams are caused by “inward” parts of the body, different feelings in a
person cause different kinds of dreams. Hobbes explains,
And hence it is that lying cold breedeth dreams of fear, and raiseth
the thought and image of some fearful object, the motion from the
brain to the inner parts and from the inner parts to the brain being
reciprocal; and that, as anger causeth heat in some parts of the body
when we are awake, so when we sleep the overheating of the same
parts causeth anger, and raiseth up in the brain the imagination of an
enemy…In sum, our dreams are the reverse of our waking
imaginations, the motion when we are awake beginning at one end,
and when we dream at another. (ibid)
28
The Hobbesian picture is one where motion and particles are sufficient to explain
mental life, from memory to dreams, imagination, passions, and thoughts. The
motion of particles that make contact with the sense organs creates pressure
inwards, and this pressure constitutes the varieties of mental experiences that we
have.
Mental Architecture: Ratiocination
Hobbes took a language of thought view of cognition. Basically, his view is that
conceptions are mental items that can be labeled, or “marked” with words. This
marking allows for later recall, when the object, once pressed against the senses is
no longer present. Hobbes writes that a mark is, “a sensible object which a man
erecteth voluntarily to himself, to the end to remember thereby somewhat past, when
the same is objected to his sense again” (Elements of Law, 17). Such marks may
then be “recalled to our mind [and] as are like those thoughts for which we took
them” (Elements of Philosophy, 13). We mark conceptions not only so that we can
recall them, but because doing so also allows us to think, or ratiocinate with them.
Ratiocination is computation—a way of manipulating mental symbols or words.
By RATIOCINATION, I mean computation. Now to compute, is
either to collect the sum of many things that are added together, or
to know what remains when one thing is taken out of another.
Ratiocination, therefore, is the same with addition and subtraction;
and if any man add multiplication and division, I will not be against
it, seeing multiplication is nothing but addition of equals one to
another, and division nothing but a subtraction of equals one from
another, as often as is possible. So that all ratiocination is
comprehended in these two operations of the mind, addition and
subtraction. (Elements of Philosophy, 3)
In Hobbes’ view, thinking is a simple process of addition and subtraction over marks
29
that are attached onto conceptions. For Hobbes, “Reason…is nothing but reckoning
(that is, adding and subtracting) of the consequences of general names agreed upon,
for the marking and signifying of our thoughts” (30).
Mental Architecture: Passions
Hobbesian passions are particularly seldom studied, and are, in general, not very
well understood. Very little has been written about the topic. Gary Herbert (1989)
recognizes that the centrality of the passions in Hobbes’ account of human nature
makes examining them carefully absolutely fundamental. And at the same time, this
is exactly what is lacking in most Hobbes studies (87). The lack of attention to
Hobbesian passions can be seen among non-specialists who incorrectly hold that,
according to Hobbes, reason and passion war with one another, and that what we are
after is the triumph of reason over passion. For instance, Arrigo Pacchi (1987)
writes, “it is well known that the cornerstone of Hobbes’ political philosophy is the
opposition between reason and the emotions” (111). For Pacchi, passions are to
blame for the ills of humanity:
[the state’s] stability is threatened not only by ignorance but also by
the disrupting influence of the passions…Passions such as “Hope,
Fear, Anger, Pitty”, when deliberately aroused by orators and
demagogues (who themselves are moved by ill-directed emotions
arising from a thirst for power) turn men “out of fools into
madmen”… “[Reason] will only attain results comparable to those
of geometry if it is free from the interference of passion”. (111)
Pacchi argues that Hobbes is best read as arguing for the “devastating, pernicious
influence of the passions on the attainment of the chief desire of men, the
preservation of life and welfare” [italics mine] (112). Kim Sungmoon (2011) takes a
similar view, writing, “in the Hobbesian man, passion (that is reduced to power)
overwhelms reason, instead of being controlled by it…one’s inner-world…is
30
nothing but a bundle of self-moving passions, driving civil society into the state of
“civil war”” (293-294). Slomp (1998) also sees the passions, and glory in particular,
as “crucial destabilizing forces that bring about human conflict” (553).The idea that
the passions stand in opposition to reason, create conflict, and must be overcome in
the development of civil society, also shows up in Ian Tregenza’s (2003)
presentation of Michael Oakeshott’s view. Tregenza argues that for Oakshott, pride
is a “volatile and dangerous passion” that is central to man’s makeup (172), and “a
dangerous emotion that must be tamed before civil society can be effectively
established” (173). On Oakeshott’s view the “promise” of reason is peace, and it is
man’s “rational” powers that makes it possible for the human race to be emancipated
from the “frustrations of natural appetite” (92).
The view that the passions stand in opposition to reason can only be maintained by
focussing on Hobbes’ political writing, without the context of his broader view of
the nature of mind. In fact, for Hobbes passions are just particles in motion, as are
thoughts. They are not inherently normative one way or the other, and they are not
in themselves something to be overcome.
Susan James (1997) is much more accurate in her interpretation of Hobbes, which is
that conceptions and passions are identified. James writes, “emotions
are…conscious thoughts, which are our experience of bodily motions” (129).
Passions and thoughts are differentiated by their location in the body – in the head
for thoughts, and in the heart for passions. This can be seen in the following passage,
where Hobbes is explicit that conceptions are motions that can move from the head
to the heart and can be experienced, for example, as pleasure. Hobbes writes,
[C]onceptions or apparitions are nothing really, but motion in some
internal substance of the head; which motion not stopping there, but
proceeding to the heart, of necessity must there either help or hinder
that motion which is called vital; when it helpeth, it is called
DELIGHT, contentment, or pleasure, which is nothing really but
31
motion about the heart, as conception is nothing but motion within
the head; and the objects that cause it are called pleasant or
delightful, or by some name equivalent. (Elements of Law, 28)
The precise relationship between thought and passion is somewhat elusive and open
to interpretation. With regards to Hobbes’ theory, Leo Strauss (1956) also interprets
thoughts and passions as being singular, comparing them together as corresponding
to what Descartes and Locke called “ideas” (178). For Hobbes, everything that is
“internal” is mind. The limit of the body is the factor that determines what is mind,
and what is not mind. This is why Strauss sees that the internal life of man is unified
by the boundary of the body. Passions are best understood therefore, as mind,
combining with thoughts in various ways to create even more mental complexity.
Passions and thoughts integrate with one another in the process of deliberation,
which is what immediately precedes deliberate action.
I remind my reader at this point that my aim is to analyze the extent to which
Hobbes is able to account for the heterogeneity of the mental. This is in search of a
justified reason why Hobbes’ view of mind receives so little attention. While I have
already rejected other possible reasons for the neglect of Hobbes’ view, I look now
to diagnose whether this is because his view is just too simple, and can’t account for
the complexity of mind. To this end, I have explicated a good portion of Hobbesian
mental architecture, including conceptions, imagination, dreams, and ratiocination.
The purpose of this is to show the details of how Hobbes achieves complexity from
simple parts. This is to support my position that Hobbes deserves more recognition
as a philosopher of mind. I’ve also illustrated the way Hobbesian passions are
sometimes misinterpreted, and how this impacts interpretations of Hobbes’ political
philosophy. From here, I focus on a more accurate view of the passions, and how
Hobbesian passions and thought integrate to account for the rich variety of
experiences. I briefly discuss some of the influence of this on his political
philosophy, before moving on to evaluate the success as well as the challenges to
Hobbes’ view.
32
The Integration of Passion and Thought
Hobbes categorizes the passions at the most basic level according to whether they
elicit a movement toward or away from a stimulus, calling them either “appetitive”
or “aversive” respectively. When the object that draws us near is pleasing, the
internal motion is called “appetite” and when it is displeasing, the internal motion
away is called “aversion” (Elements of Law, 28). Emotions are a solicitation, or
provocations to come near to something that is pleasing, or to withdraw from
something that is displeasing.
Hobbes’ identification and classification of the passions appear in The Elements of
Law, De Cive, Leviathan, De Corpore, and De Homine. Hobbes’ view of the way
passions relate to thoughts can be considered a precursor to what in modern times is
called a cognitivist, or appraisal view of emotion. On such views, emotions are
understood as associated with cognitions. In his discussion of the passions, Hobbes
described how various complex feelings require thought in order to exist, and
carefully explicated how feeling is the result of the way one thinks about and
understands a situation. For example, Hobbes’ explanation of fear involves a
solicitation to move away from something. But it also involves and requires the
thought of some particular, undesirable event that takes place in the future. Fear
then, requires thought. This is so for any number of passions as explicated by
Hobbes. For example, courage is described as the experience of being in the
presence of evil, but not feeling fear. This experience requires a conception of evil
in the imagination, and a feeling response to that conception. Similarly, he describes
anger, or “sudden courage,” as overcoming a present opposition. This experience
also requires a conception of the self, the other, and the situation, in response to
which feeling is experienced. In Hobbes’ words,
COURAGE, in a large signification, is the absence of fear in the
presence of any evil whatsoever; but in a stricter and more common
meaning, it is contempt of wounds and death, when they oppose a
33
man in the way to his end. ANGER (or sudden courage) is nothing
but the appetite or desire of overcoming present
opposition…(Elements of Law, 38)
Hobbes’ extensive explanations of various passions show that a feeling response
requires conceptions in the imagination. Hope and trust are both construed in terms
of the conceptions of expectations. In the case of hope, it involves conceptions of
the future: “HOPE is expectation of good to come, as fear is the expectation of evil”
(39). Trust is construed as a passion arising from expectations of another person:
“TRUST is a passion proceeding from belief of him from whom we expect or hope
for good, so free from doubt that upon the same we pursue no other way” (40).
There are myriad examples of passions that Hobbes explains in relation to
conceptions. For example, Hobbes explains feelings of repentance as arising from an
understanding of the purpose of some particular action. He writes, “REPENTANCE
is the passion that proceedeth from opinion or knowledge that the action they have
done is out of the way to the end they would attain” (39). Similarly, humility results
from an understanding of our own infirmity: “The passion contrary to glory,
proceeding from apprehension of our own infirmity, is called HUMILITY by those
by whom it is approved” (Elements of Law, 38). Pity involves imagining a negative
future situation: “PITY is imagination or fiction of future calamity to ourselves,
proceeding from the sense of another man's present calamity” (40). Shame, a
complicated emotion, involves the “remembrance” of defect or infirmity in oneself.
Hobbes writes,
It happeneth sometimes, that he that hath a good opinion of himself,
and upon good ground, may nevertheless, by reason of the
forwardness which that passion begetteth, discover in himself some
defect or infirmity, the remembrance whereof dejecteth him; and
this passion is called SHAME. (38)
34
Hobbes provides a complex explanation of the experience of indignation, once again
deriving empirically observed heterogeneity consistent with empiricism about
contents, and a simple materialism. This experience requires both a feeling – grief—
and the conception of good coming to those considered unworthy. Hobbes writes,
INDIGNATION is that grief which consisteth in the conception of
good success happening to them whom they think unworthy thereof.
Seeing therefore men think all those unworthy whom they hate, they
think them not only unworthy of the good fortune they have, but
also of their own virtues. (Elements of Law, 40)
The passion of glory, for instance, is a passionate response to imagination and
conceptions. The same is true for vainglory. Of these, Hobbes writes,
Glory, or internal gloriation or triumph of the mind, is that passion
which proceedeth from the imagination or conception of our own
power, above the power of him that contendeth with us… as when a
man imagineth himself to do the actions whereof he readeth in some
romant, or to be like unto some other man whose acts he admireth.
And this is called VAIN GLORY…(36)
Hobbes’ account of how thoughts combine with passions to create the richness of
human experience is, then, an excellent example of how he establishes complexity
out of simple parts. It is in the combinations and arrangement of the simples that
this is achieved. With conceptions, along with appetite and aversion, Hobbes
provides a plausible account of the most nuanced and familiar experiences such as
repentance, humility, shame, indignation, and vainglory.
35
A Brief Aside: Implications for Hobbes’ Political Philosophy
An interesting upshot of these reflections on mental architecture is that
interpretations of Hobbes’ political philosophy that involve a war between reason
and passion are essentially in opposition to his empiricist, mechanist picture of the
nature of man. Working up from the movement of particles, the psychological view
and the view of action that Hobbes presents does not make a firm distinction
between thought and passion, both of which are conceptions. It is clear that both are
required for action.
The development of commonwealth requires passion, as well as thinking, or
ratiocination. The possibility of coming out of the state of nature consists for man,
“partly in the Passions, partly in his Reason” (Leviathan, Chapter 13). There are
particular passions that induce man toward peaceful living, in particular the fear of
death. This is “necessary to commodious living.” As well, there is the hope of
attaining a better life. Chapter 13 of Leviathan has an entire section subtitled, The
Passions That Incline Men To Peace.
Not only are passions necessary for peace, it’s also Hobbes’ view that reason plays
an important role in the causes of the state of war. For example, Hobbes describes
how other animals, such as bees and ants, live successfully together socially
precisely because they do not reason. It is the ability to reason that causes men to
see fault in one another, particularly in the administration of their common business.
Everyone seems to think himself or herself wiser than the next person, and more
able to govern, and this creates both distraction and civil war. By way of contrast,
creatures without the use of reason, like bees and ants, don’t consider the way
business is administered, and so they don’t have a reason for warring with one
another. In other words, lacking reason, we would lack civil war (Leviathan, 156).
36
Mental Architecture: Deliberation
For many empiricists, thought and feeling work together in a much more streamlined
way than they do for many rationalists. This is because of the foundational role of
sensation in the production of knowledge. Remember that for empiricists, the basic
orientation is toward sensation as the foundation for knowledge, whereas for the
rationalist the basic orientation is away from sensation as the foundation for
knowledge. This means that for empiricists, sensation must be appropriately and
relevantly related to reason in an account of knowledge. In Hobbes’ case, there is an
intimate and important connection between thought and feeling. This close
relationship between conceptions and passions is crucial for understanding and
appreciating his view of action, which involves both deliberation and volition.
Reasoned action is the end result of a process of deliberation. Hobbes describes
deliberation as the arising of various passions when considering the consequences of
a given action. A back and forth takes place, where various outcomes are envisioned.
When in the mind of man, Appetites, and Aversions, Hopes, and
Feares, concerning one and the same thing, arise alternately…the
whole summe of Desires, Aversions, Hopes and Fears, continued till
the thing be either done, or thought impossible, is that we call
Deliberation. (Leviathan, 126)
This view of deliberation as the alternating passions of appetite and fear also appears
in various other texts, including Elements of Law. There Hobbes reiterates the
process of deliberation as originating in the impact of external objects on the senses;
from there conceptions arise, and thoughts give rise to passions. The succession of
various imagined outcomes requires both the thought of something to take place in
37
the future, and of the possibility of various outcomes. Hobbes writes,
It hath been declared already, how external objects cause
conceptions, and conceptions appetite and fear, which are the first
unperceived beginnings of our actions: for either the action
immediately followeth the first appetite, as when we do any thing
upon a sudden; or else to our first appetite there succeedeth some
conception of evil to happen unto us by such actions, which is fear,
and withholdeth us from proceeding...This alternate succession of
appetite and fear, during all the time the action is in our power to do,
or not to do, is that we call DELIBERATION. (61)
Deliberation is an internal activity that takes place directly before action.
Mental Architecture: Volition
I want to mention one more example—volition. In Hobbesian mental architecture
volition, or the will, is identified with passion. The will is not a separate power or
faculty, but is rather the last desire in a chain of inner motions that lead to outer
motions. Hobbes clearly says that the will is “the last appetite” in deliberation: “In
deliberation the last appetite, as also the last fear, is called WILL (viz.) the last
appetite will to do; the last fear will not to do, or will to omit” (Elements of Law,
61). This idea is echoed in a later passage where he says that the passions are the
will: “Appetite, fear, hope, and the rest of the passions are not called voluntary; for
they proceed not from, but are the will; and the will is not voluntary” (62). Volition
is more or less a matter of one’s sensory history:
Forasmuch as will to do is appetite, and will to omit, fear; the causes
of appetite and of fear are the causes also of our will. But the
propounding of benefits and of harms, that is to say, of reward and
punishment, is the cause of our appetite and of our fears, and
38
therefore also of our wills…(63)
As in Hobbes’ entire system, volition operates mechanistically, which is to say that it
is determined. Freedom of volition means freedom from constraint. For example, if
a man is locked in a room, then he is not free to leave that room should he desire to;
the freedom of his volition is constrained. But for Hobbes, there is no such thing as
freedom in the sense of volition intervening on a thought process in order to redirect
it to some alternate end. 6
The general picture that Hobbes presents is that the human being is a machine set in
motion by external impulses. Tiny particles make contact with the sense organs, and
create motion by pressing inwards. These external impulses thereby set up internal
impulses. The entire internal life continues to operate in terms of determinate,
lawful motion. Hobbes’ psychology is an overtly materialist one, based on
mechanical physiology. All psychological phenomena are explained by reference to
physiological causes.
We are now in a position to appreciate that Hobbes creates complexity out of
simples by putting them together in various arrangements. This is to say that
Hobbes establishes variation in terms of derived heterogeneity. While each of the
basic components out of which mind is made are simple, they combine in various
ways to create heterogeneity. Differing combinations of thoughts and feelings 7
create different internal experiences. In the same way that an infinite quantity of
numbers can be created by the various combinations of digits 0-9, likewise the
whole array of mental elements and operations can be accounted for by different
6
Given that Hobbes thinks that the will, or volition is just a name for the last thing
that happens before action, it is also possible to interpret him as arguing for the
elimination of volition as a real part of mental life. Either of these interpretations
will do.
7
While a distinction is sometimes drawn between “passion” and “feeling,” I use
these terms interchangeably here.
39
combinations of simple elements. 8
Hobbes’ psychology does indeed provide for the combination of thoughts, which
includes imagination and dreams, with feelings, which includes volition, to produce
every imaginable internal experience. Reason and passion are not two different
things, as some commentators take them to be. Thought and passion are just one
thing that functions differently. Volition is also the same thing as passion, so one
way of putting this is that the will is “reduced” to passion. Hobbes establishes the
heterogeneity of the mind via the simple particles that combine and recombine in
various ways, establishing complexity not within different kinds of things, but within
complex arrangements. And this solution, in its broad approach, if not in its details,
works. Particles are homogenous, but perform different functions.
Notice that this is not very dissimilar from modern explanations of mind that appeal
to various organized patterns of homogenous particles, whether they are atoms, or
neurons. In contemporary discussions, it is not uncommonly held that the mind is
identical with the brain, or realized somehow or other via the physical structure of
the brain. And the brain is comprised of about 100 billion nerve cells—neurons—
that share the same characteristics as other cells, as well as the ability to transmit
certain kinds of messages. Variation is explained in terms of structural and
8
Locke also articulates the sufficiency of a few simples to account for all the
“fancies and opinions” of mankind, comparing it to the variety that can be achieved
with the composition of only 24 letters. In Locke’s words,
Nor will it be so strange, to think these few simple Ideas sufficient
to employ the quickest Thought, or largest Capacity; and to furnish
the Materials of all that various Knowledge, and more various
Fancies and Opinions of all Mankind, if we consider how many
Words may be made out of the various composition of 24 Letters;
or if going one step farther, we will but reflect on the variety of
combinations may be made, with barely one of the abovementioned Ideas, viz. Number, whose stock is inexhaustible, and
truly infinite: And what a large and immense field, doth Extension
alone afford the Mathematicians? (Essay Bk.2, chpt.7, section 10)
40
functional properties. To draw on a familiar modern-day example, Patricia
Churchland argues for a brain-based understanding of the mind, based on a
computational model of cognition and perception. In Churchland’s view, groups of
neurons interact to enable an organism to see, decide, and move. Networks of
neurons represent and compute. Physical properties are understood to code
information (Churchland, 1992). The modern-day view of the brain—and the mind
as it relates to the brain—is somewhat more sophisticated than the view that Hobbes
held, but in its basic form, it is very similar. If this basic strategy of explanation that
is so common in modern discussions is taken to be more or less acceptable, then
insofar as it bears the right resemblances, the Hobbesian view of mind ought also to
be considered more or less acceptable—at least in terms of its broad structure. This
is not to say that there are no problems with such a view. It is to say, however, that
the problem of explaining the complexity of mind on this model is not a decisive
problem. This is a problem that Hobbes took a sophisticated stab at.
Hobbes accounts for the complexity of mind adequately according to his empiricist,
mechanistic, materialistic view. What’s more, Hobbes’ view aligns quite naturally
with some important modern-day explanations of mind as it relates to brain and
body. His view of mind ought not to be ignored on the grounds that it fails to
account for the heterogeneity of mind.
Conclusion
The Hobbesian view of mind is, in many ways, a sophisticated view of mind
according to the principles of the New Science and a certain sort of empiricism.
Explaining the various parts of the mind in a plausible way without appealing to a
diverse range of occult internal powers is no easy task, and Hobbes’ view is
surprisingly sophisticated. This is not to say that the view does not face some serious
problems.
One problem is the important moral and ethical repercussions that arise out of
41
determinism. This very issue was the subject of a famous debate between Hobbes
and Bishop Bramhall, with Bramhall arguing passionately for the ability of man to
choose otherwise. One might take the view, as Hobbes does, that it’s necessary to
accept this truth, since it falls out of what’s true about the world: mechanical,
determinate nature precludes the intervention of a power of volition. The universe is
determined, and that means that the psychological processes, as well as the
behaviour of human beings, is also determined. Our illusions about moral and
ethical dimensions will have to be faced for what they are. The determinate
worldview might be unpalatable for these reasons, but it is not incoherent. This
problem might be considered a matter of taste, rather than a decisive objection to the
cogency of the system.
There are, however, other important problems with Hobbes’ view. First, it makes no
reference to the phenomenon of consciousness. Hobbes did not account for
consciousness, since he did not even articulate any problem of consciousness at all.
In this respect, Hobbes’ view of mind is incomplete, although we might be forgiving
about this, since the lack of articulation about consciousness was fairly standard
during Hobbes’ time. There is, however, another serious problem with the view as
Hobbes expresses it. Even though he is able to explain the sophistication of the
structure of mind, he gives absolutely no explanation of content. What I mean by
this is that the properties of the physical world are very different from the properties
of the informational world, or of content. How does a particle turn into an image?
For Hobbes, particles make “contact” with the sense organs, and their rectilinear
motion turns to curvilinear motion as they move “internally.” But why should the
change in direction of motion amount to a complete change in the semantic
properties of that particle? And how exactly does this take place? It’s not just that
Hobbes lacks a sophisticated account of content, but he lacks an account of content
at all. The universe may be made of tiny particles in motion, but internal life doesn’t
seem like tiny particles in motion. What is required is at least a possible explanation
of how this is so. And yet this is just what is lacking in Hobbes’ account. Even so,
the Hobbesian view of mind can be seen as anticipating modern-day explanations of
42
mind in terms of brain; Hobbes’ view of passion certainly anticipated modern-day
appraisal theories of emotion. His view is interesting and worthwhile to examine,
and the failure to pay sufficient attention to Hobbes’ view of mind is unfortunate for
several reasons.
First, by failing to accord Hobbes equivalent examination to Descartes, it is easier to
develop a skewed or inaccurate view of the state of philosophy of mind in the
Modern period. Without looking closely at empiricist explanations of mind, and
Hobbes’ in particular, the work of that time can appear more unscientific and naïve
than it was, and we may mistakenly believe that contemporary theorizing on mind
has progressed much more than it actually has.
Another reason for reconsidering Hobbes’ philosophy of mind is the fact that
without it, our understanding of Hobbes’ political theory is diminished. Hobbes
modeled his political philosophy on the idea that the state is a man, “writ large.” For
this reason, he began Leviathan, as well as several of his other works, with an
account of man. Hobbes’ empirical approach to understanding the “inner workings”
of humankind has thus made its way in to his understanding of political life in a deep
way that is often overlooked. Failure to appreciate the impact of Hobbes’
empiricism has eventuated in some important misinterpretations of Hobbes’ political
writings. For example, it is sometimes suggested that the Hobbesian state of war is
the result of a conflict between reason and passion (e.g. Pacchi, 1987). This view is
clearly at odds with what Hobbes wrote about the relationship between reason and
passion in his view of the human being; indeed, it is at odds with empiricist
explanations more generally of the relation between thought and feeling. Further, as
a result of this widespread, mistaken view about reason and passion, we may be
limited in our understanding of other important aspects of Hobbes’ view, such as
how his commonwealth was to be formed, and what moves the Sovereign.
43
Works Cited
Carlin, Laurence. The Empiricists: A Guide For The Perplexed. London,
Continuum, 2009. Print.
Churchland, Patricia. The Computational Brain. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press,
1992. Print.
Garber, Daniel, and Wilson, Margaret. “Mind-Body Problems.” The Cambridge
History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy. Vol. 1, 833-867. Web, March
2008.
James, Susan. “The Passions And The Good Life.” The Cambridge Companion
to Modern Philosophy. Ed. Donald Rutherford. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006. 198-220.
Hebert, Gary. Thomas Hobbes: The Unity of Scientific and Moral Wisdom. UBC
Press, 1989. Print.
Hobbes, Thomas. De Cive. Hobbes: English Works. Comp. and Ed. by Mark C.
Rooks. Charlottseville: InteLex Corporation, 1992. Web. Oct. 21, 2014.
---. De Corpore. Hobbes: English Works. Comp. and ed. Mark C. Rooks.
Charlottseville: InteLex Corporation, 1992. Web. Nov. 27, 2014.
---. Leviathan. Hobbes: English Works. Comp and ed. by Mark C. Rooks.
Charlottseville: InteLex Corporation, 1992. Web. Dec. 11, 2014.
---. The Elements of Law. Hobbes: English Works. Comp. and ed. by Mark C.
Rooks. Charlottseville: InteLex Corporation, 1992. Web. Oct. 21, 2014.
---. The Elements of Philosophy. Hobbes: English Works. Comp and ed. Mark C.
Rooks. Charlottseville: InteLex Corporation, 1992. Web. Oct. 21, 2014.
Oakshott, Michael. Hobbes on Civil Association. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1975.
Overhoff, Jurgen. Hobbes’ Theory of the Will: Ideological Reasons and Historical
Circumstances. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000.
Print.
Pacchi, Arrigo. “Hobbes and the Passions.” Topoi. 6.2, 1987. 111-119.
Sadler, Gregory B. “Reason As Danger and Remedy For The Modern Subject in
Hobbes’ Leviathan.” Philosophy & Social Criticism. 35.9, 2009. 1099-
44
1118.
Slomp, G. “From Genus To Species: The Unravelling of Hobbesian Glory.” History
of Political Thought. 19.4, 1998. 552-569.
Sorrell, Tom. “Hobbes Thomas.” Encyclopedia of Empiricism. Eds. Garrett &
Barbanell. Greenwood Press, 1997. Print.
Strauss, Leo. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952. Print.
Sungmoon, Kim. “From Desire to Civility: Is Xunzi a Hobbesian?” Dao: A Journal
of Comparative Philosophy. 10 (3), 2011. 291-309.
Tregenza, Ian. Michael Oakshott on Hobbes: A Study in the Renewal of
Philosophical Ideas. Charlottesville: Imprint Academic, 2003. Print.
Zagorin, Perez. “Hobbes On Our Minds.” Journal of the History of Ideas, 51.2,
1990. 317-335.
45
Chapter Three
Tensions in Locke on Free Will
The concept of freedom is the stone of stumbling for all empiricists, but at the same
time the key to the loftiest practical principles for critical moralists, who perceive by
its means that they must necessarily proceed by a rational method.
-- Kant, Critique of Practical Reason, Preface
The Trouble With Locke on Free Will
Despite his reputation as a Western philosopher of the highest caliber, Locke’s work
on free will suffers from a rather different reputation. This portion of Locke’s
corpus, the ever-evolving chapter, “Of Power” of his Essay Concerning Human
Understanding, is often regarded as a dark spot on what is otherwise a delicious,
deep, intricate, and in many ways plausible, work. Locke’s work on free will is
infamous for its difficulty of interpretation, its tensions, and its inconsistencies, and
the text has been a source of frustration for commentators since the time of its
publication.
There are five editions of Locke’s Essay, and in each edition the chapter Of Power
gets longer and longer. This portion of the Essay is the most heavily revised piece of
his entire work. It’s as though once Locke opened a can of worms, he could only fit
them back into a bigger can. And most intriguingly, the revisions Locke made in
later versions created inconsistencies with his initial statements which he left, for the
most part, intact. That is to say, Locke made statements that don’t cohere with his
more general, foundational view, and did not make attempts to create consistency
out of them. At least so it appears. Having established a general framework that
affirmed both the New Science and empiricism, Locke’s initial work on volition was
very Hobbesian in tone and tenor. Locke put forth a deterministic view of volition
that fit well with his other theoretical commitments. But having had “second
46
thoughts,” presumably about the impact of determinism on the moral dimension of
volition, he makes changes that present a more libertarian conception of the will.
These changes were made, however, without making the corresponding changes to
his views of the New Science. The later versions then—the ones that Locke had put
more time and thought into—are more inconsistent and filled with tensions than his
first attempts. How to handle and interpret these revisions has been the subject of
both confusion and controversy since the time of their publication (see, e.g., Harris,
2007, Chappell, 1994; Yaffe, 2001).
One of the significant disappointments of the chapter is that Locke never gives a
straight answer to the question of whether the will is left at liberty by the influence
of the motives. His account does nothing to allow us to answer the question whether
a person who does action A could have done action B in that situation, without any
change in the antecedent mental or physical circumstances (O’Connor, 116-17). As
a result, the text leaves open the question whether Locke was a determinist, a
libertarian, or a compatibilist. There is evidence that supports each interpretation.
Both libertarians and determinists consider him part of their party. During his own
time, libertarians thought Locke gave too much to the necessitarian cause, while
necessitarians thought he muddied a question that Hobbes had put clearly (Harris,
21). Given its inconsistencies, it’s all too easy to fit the text to a particular doctrine,
and excuse those parts of the text that don’t fit. This is just what many
commentators do, charging Locke with “unfortunate phraseology” when he agrees
with the opposing side (39).
Rather than attempting to fit Locke’s text into one or another of the standard
positions, we gain a deeper understanding of the underlying issues by looking at the
tensions among the unit-ideas that create the inconsistencies. Exposing these
inconsistencies is one of the most valuable contributions of his work, and so it is
very important not to read them out of the text. These are real inconsistencies
among the commitments to the New Science, empiricism, and free will. The
relationships among these unit-ideas can be captured in part by the following
47
triangle diagram. At each corner of the triangle is one of the concepts, and they are
each connected to one another via lines of tension. These lines, which provide
tension, combine with the concepts to give the constellation of ideas shape.
Empiricism
Volition
New
Science
Figure 1. The mutually-supporting tensions
Understood as connected to one another via a positive, shape-giving tension, we
learn more about the way these notions are mutually supportive of one another.
Depending on how each of these terms is defined and deployed, balance and stability
are achieved. But there is also a negative side to the tensions that hold these
concepts together. In some ways these unit-ideas are mutually supporting, but in
other ways, they seem to undermine one another. With too much pressure placed on
any one of the three points, the entire structure will become unstable, and collapse.
In the case of Locke’s work on volition, the increasing importance he places on
maintaining libertarian freedom of the will places unsustainable pressure on the New
Science corner of his triangle. Correspondingly, his initial framework that adheres
to the tenets of the New Science creates too much tension with the notion of
48
libertarian free will at the right hand of the triangle. The structure of the triangle
falls apart with too-stringent requirements for freedom within a conception of the
universe that doesn’t support that view. Locke’s empiricism supports both his
conceptions of the New Science, and his conception of volition. But inconsistencies
in Locke’s work take place along the bottom line of the triangle that connects the
New Science with his account of volition.
Looking for Locke’s final position is to speculate on how Locke might have made
changes to one of the corners of the diagram, and thereby created a more stable, selfsupporting structure. But this goes too far. Locke didn’t make a different triangle.
In this paper I give up the search for Locke’s final position, and instead analyze the
source of the tensions in the work in terms of his competing commitments to these
three. Discovering the reasons why the pieces of his puzzle just don’t fit together (it
seems), no matter how much tinkering Locke does, reveals important insights into
each of these presuppositions, and by extension, it provides insight into the model of
mind operating in Locke’s thought. Locke’s seemingly troubled text ought not to be
seen as the expression of a confused thinker; neither should it be seen as the result of
an undisciplined editorial process, as some have argued. Instead it should be seen as
the exposure of the real tensions inherent in this combination of ideas.
The Game Plan
The game plan for this chapter is as follows. First, I briefly explicate the three
standard positions on freedom and responsibility. This is intended to help orient my
reader within the critical commentary that fits Locke into one of each of these
standard positions. From there, I reach back in history to the period just prior to
Locke’s work on free will, specifically to the critical reception that Hobbes’ view of
free will received. Locke’s initial approach to free will is in many ways very
Hobbesian, and he was very likely responding to the problems created by the
Hobbesian picture. With this background in mind we are prepared to look more
deeply at Locke’s work and what likely motivated its various evolutions. Having
49
explored the terrain of Locke’s view(s), I then analyze the text in terms of the
inherent tensions among Locke’s commitments to New Science, empiricism, and
free will. I highlight two conclusions that do not follow from this: the first is that
Locke is a compatibilist; the second is that he failed to articulate the changes
necessary to make his view consistent.
Reminder: My HIP Approach
I remind my reader that my approach to this analysis is historically informed
philosophy (HIP), and so I focus primarily on analysis of the concepts as defined and
structured by Locke. I respect and appreciate the fact that context plays an important
role in Locke’s work. I take it into consideration, especially regarding the impact of
the critical reception of Hobbes’ work on Locke’s thinking. Even so, my general
approach is not philosophically oriented history (POH), which would involve a far
greater focus on the details of Locke’s life and context in order to draw conclusions
about what he might have thought. My HIP approach is less concerned with
discovering what Locke in fact believed about liberty and volition. It seems to me
clear that Locke changed his mind and was unsettled about the matter. My interest
is the meaning of the ideas that he put forth, their strength, viability, weaknesses,
and usefulness.
Background: The Three Standard Positions on Freedom and
Volition
The free will debate is typically understood to admit of three standard positions.
Each of these positions stakes a claim about the capacity that a person has to choose
his or her behaviour, regardless of an antecedent causal chain of events. The three
standard positions are determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. 9
9
Just as it is in most philosophical debates, the free will debate is replete with subtle
distinctions and nuance, and these subtleties and nuances extend into the three
standard positions. This is to say that what follows is a “quick and dirty” summary
50
Determinism is commonly characterized as the view that every event is causally
necessitated by antecedent events. As a metaphysical thesis, this is the view that the
facts about the past, and the laws of nature necessitate events in the future. What
this means is that given past events, combined with the fixed laws of nature, only
one future is possible. This position is essentially a denial that there is a kind of
freedom that allows one to intervene on events by choosing differently. If
determinism is true, then events that took place in the past are sufficient conditions
for one’s action. On this view, the only kind of freedom there can be is freedom
from constraint. For example, the flow of a river can be constrained by a dam, and
hence, is not free. In the same way a person who is locked in a room from the
outside is not free to leave—that person is constrained, and hence, not free. For
determinists, there is no other sense of freedom than this. For “hard” determinists,
this position is associated with a removal of the moral dimension to human action—
since human action operates in just the same way as a wind-up toy, praiseworthiness
and blameworthiness fall out of the picture.
By way of contrast, the libertarian position is at the opposite end of the spectrum of
standard positions. Libertarianism and determinism are mutually exclusive;
libertarianism is the denial of determinism. According to libertarians, what comes in
between past and future events is one’s will; one can and does change the course of
events by virtue of one’s will to do so. On this view our choices are free from both
the determination of past events, and our ability to choose is free also from our
nature. This means that not only do antecedent causes not “force our hand, so to
speak, but neither does our conditioning, or predispositions. In other words, we
always have a choice about what to do, except in conditions of constraint. On this
view, freedom is the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition, desires,
and antecedent events. No matter what a person does, it is possible that he or she
that shall suffice for the present purposes, and it is not meant to represent an
exhaustive or rigorous explanation of these positions.
51
could have done otherwise. This position is a natural fit for our commonsense
notions of praiseworthiness and blameworthiness. A person is praiseworthy or
blameworthy because they are responsible for their choices.
The third standard position, which should not be understood as a compromise, or
“mid-way” position between determinism and libertarianism, is compatibilism.
Compatibilism is essentially the denial of the claim that determinism is inconsistent
with moral responsibility. This position affirms that determinism and moral
responsibility are compatible. Compatibilism is not the conjunction of libertarianism
and determinism, nor is it a position affirming a kind of “limited free will.” Instead
it is the view that determinism is true, and at the same time, that humans can still be
held accountable for their actions.
Determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism are mutually exclusive, meaning
that it is not possible to hold more than one of them at the same time without
inconsistency. 10 If Locke were a determinist, then he was not a libertarian or a
compatibilist. Likewise, if he were a libertarian he were not a compatibilist or a
determinist. And if he were a compatibilist, then he was neither a determinist nor a
libertarian. On the other hand, he could inconsistently hold elements of each of
these positions simultaneously.
An important part of the free will debate rests on presuppositions about the nature of
the universe we live in, and given a determinist universe, a determinist conception of
volition seems to follow, barring an ad hoc justification that leaves space for
freedom of the will. What this means for analyzing Locke’s work is that if Locke
were a determinist, then he could not consistently provide a libertarian account of
volition. At least, we would expect him to provide a justification for the libertarian
elements of his system.
10
Compatibilism and determinism are consistent in the sense that it is impossible for
the will to intervene on a causal chain. But they are mutually exclusive on the issue
of what falls out of that view in terms of morality.
52
Background to Locke on Free Will: The Hobbes-Bramhall
Debate
Before diving in to the details of Locke’s writings on free will it’s important to get a
grasp of the issues of the free will debate that he was likely responding to. Hobbes
had made a splash with his view of hard determinism that was published just prior to
Locke’s time. Coming on the heels of Hobbes, Locke’s first edition of the Essay
Concerning Human Understanding was published in 1690—just 36 years after the
unauthorized publication of Hobbes’ Of Liberty and Necessity, published in 1654.
Hobbes’ determinist view of liberty had stirred up quite a fuss among critical
commentators and moralists. Hobbes had developed an explanation of how mind
could fit into the natural world according to the principles of the New Science.
While the scientific picture of man was in many ways an advancement, the
consequences for the way that subjectivity and morality fit into that picture—or
failed to—were, at least to some, disquieting, or even disturbing.
Recall from Chapter 1 that Hobbes is a staunch materialist and a mechanist, and that
he understands man on the model of a machine. In his view, everything is matter in
motion. This means that tiny particles or atoms move according to universal laws,
whether internal to the agent, or external to the agent. Agents are themselves matter
in motion. When particles make contact with the sense organs, they exert a pressure
into the interior of the human being. This is how they become the stuff of
subjectivity. The explanation of this process is mechanical; the change works by
contact and pressure. External objects press upon the sense organ, and cause
internal experiences by way of that pressure, just as the pressure of one billiard ball
striking another creates change in the struck ball. Hobbes writes that in all cases
sense is caused, “by the pressure, that is, by the motion, of external things upon our
eyes, ears, and other organs thereunto ordained” (Hobbes, Leviathan, 85).
53
Thoughts and feelings are the same sort of stuff—particles in motion—that function
in somewhat different ways. When it comes to actions thoughts present various
alternatives while passion provides the motivation for action. Volition, or the will, is
identical with passion for Hobbes. And since the movement of particles, and the
trajectories they take, are determined by universal laws, all thoughts, passions, and
volition are determined: “Appetite, fear, hope, and the rest of the passions are not
called voluntary; for they proceed not from, but are the will; and the will is not
voluntary” (Hobbes, Elements of Law, 62). It’s upfront in Hobbes’ view that the
determination of the will depends on antecedent factors, and these are both its
necessary and sufficient causes (Van den Enden, 188). For Hobbes, freedom means
freedom from constraint. An important consequence of Hobbes’ determinist view is
that social institutions, including the legal system, turn out to be not only useless, but
also unjust. Of this, Bramhall writes, in A Defense of True Liberty (1655),
For if that law be unjust and tyrannical which commands a man to
do that which is impossible for him to do, then that law is likewise
unjust and tyrannical which commands him to will that which is
impossible for him to will. (51)
Hobbes’ determinism met with some harsh criticism, the most famous of which
might have come from Bishop Bramhall. John Bramhall, Anglican Archbishop of
Armagh, had argued vociferously against Hobbes on the grounds that such a view
would relieve individuals of moral responsibility. Bramhall does not deal directly
with Hobbes’ reasons for determinism, but instead denies the position all together.
Bramhall strongly asserts that inclinations and fears may be necessary causes for the
will, but they are not sufficient. Actions are free in their causes. What comes in
between feelings and action, says Bramhall, is a thinking or meditational process of
rational deliberation and election. From there we can choose which action we wish
to take. We do not have to give in to our proclivities (52). For this reason
punishment by law remains just and appropriate, even if for no other end than
54
vindication:
The truth is, the punishing of delinquents by law respects both the
evil act past and the good to come…It is not lawful to do evil that
good may come of it, nor to punish an innocent person for the
admonition of others; that is to fall into a certain crime for fear of an
uncertain. Again, though there were no other end of penalties
inflicted, neither probatory nor castigatory nor exemplary, but only
vindicatory, to satisfy the law out of a zeal of justice, by giving
every one his own, yet the action is just and warrantable. (Ibid)
Bramhall’s argument begged the question against Hobbes’ determinism. But while
his defense of moral responsibility and the justice of punishment did not actually
engage with Hobbes’ argument, it does represent the strong disapprobation that
Hobbes’ view received. Hobbes’ view of the workings of mind was very
theoretically consistent, and followed straightforwardly from his empiricism coupled
with the mechanistic element of New Science. At the same time that it remained
“philosophically sound,” Hobbes’ determinism did have the consequence of
threatening the moral dimension associated with the ability to choose freely. And in
so doing, it seemed to threaten the justice of punishment. These are strong
countervailing influences against a determinist view of volition.
Locke: The Great English Empiricist
Like Hobbes, Locke too was an empiricist; his Essay Concerning Human
Understanding is considered one of the first great defenses of empiricism. Although
Locke is received as one of the founders of empiricism, like Hobbes, his is not an
extreme form of empiricism. Locke is a “conservative empiricist,” and recognizes
that reason has a fundamental role in human knowledge (Rogers, 214). He is also
comfortable with admitting entities that are not observable. Locke’s frequent
strategy is to start from experience as his basic datum, and then to call upon
55
evidence to substantiate his claims (211). All the same, he emphasizes the role of
sense experience in knowledge, writing that man first begins to think, “When he first
has any sensation.” In Locke’s view, sensation is the most fundamental source of
ideas. When Locke asks himself how men came to have ideas in their minds, he
appeals to “everyones own Observation and Experience” [sic] (Locke, Essay, first
edition, 37).
There is a strong tie between experience and ideas for Locke. Supposing that the
mind is like a sheet of white paper, he affirms that knowledge is founded on
experience:
First, our senses, conversant about particular, sensible objects, do
convey into the Mind, several distinct perceptions of things,
according to those various ways, wherein those objects do affect
them…This great source, of most of the ideas we have, depending
wholly upon our senses, and derived by them to our understanding,
I call SENSATION. (37)
It is because there are no ideas in the mind before the senses have “conveyed any
in,” that ideas are coeval with sensation. Locke makes a distinction between ideas
from sensation and ideas of reflection. Ideas of reflection are those that come from
perceiving the operations of our own minds, such as thought, perception, doubt,
belief, and volition. These are ideas that differ from the ideas that we have from our
senses—the source of these ideas is man himself. While the distinction between
ideas of sensation and ideas of reflection might seem to suggest more of a rationalist
leaning in Locke, it should be noted that ideas of reflection are logically dependent
upon ideas of sensation. In fact, Locke affirms that ideas of reflection might as well
be called “internal sense” because without something for the mind to reflect upon
from sensation, there would be no such ideas. Thus Locke’s paradigmatically
empiricist answer to the question as to where man gets the materials of reason and
knowledge is “in one word, from EXPERIENCE” (37).
56
Locke the New Scientist
Like Hobbes, Locke is also strongly influenced by the development of the New
Science. His allegiance to it can be seen in the Epistle to the Reader in his Essay,
where Locke famously describes himself as, “clearing the ground of rubbish” so that
work done by the great scientists—Newton, Boyle, and Huygens—could proceed
more effectively. The significance of Boyle for Locke is well accepted, especially in
regard to the emphasis on empiricism in the natural sciences (Rogers, 1966, 205;
Lennon 1993, 162). Rogers argues that Locke’s thinking is extremely close to
Boyle’s on a number of topics. It is universally acknowledged that Locke accepts a
prominent place for corpuscularian mechanism (Downing, 381). Margaret Atherton
notes that, “it is close to becoming a contemporary orthodoxy than Locke’s motive
in writing the Essay was to provide a foundation or defense for corpuscular
mechanism” (Atherton, 33). Lisa Downing writes,
Locke’s discussions of the primary/secondary quality distinction and
of real essences cannot be understood without reference to the
corpuscularian science of his day, which held that all macroscopic
bodily phenomena should be explained in terms of the motions and
impacts of submicroscopic particles. (Downing, 381)
Peter Alexander reads Locke’s Essay as an attempt to help confirm the theory of
Boylean mechanism by drawing out its implications (382). Locke is explicit in his
belief that the fundamental particles of matter have the properties of solidity,
extension, figure and mobility.
While Locke tries to avoid talking of metaphysical matters, like Hobbes, he does say
that ideas are produced by motion: “all sensation being produced in us, only by
different degrees and modes of Motion”. Locke argues that bodies operate on one
another by impulse. He also thinks that it is inconceivable that they should operate
on that which they don’t touch, because they cannot operate at a distance. Because
57
external objects are not united to our minds when they produce ideas in us, he
reasons, then some motion must continue by our nerves, or “animal spirits” 11.
Locke writes, “Bodies must come from [the objects] to the eyes, and thereby convey
to the brain some motion, which produces these ideas we have of them in us” (56). 12
The mechanical principle is clear and at work in Locke’s explanation of the way
external objects create internal experiences. 13
Locke’s First Attempt (1690): Fitting Mind into the Natural
World
Locke’s adherence to both empiricism and corpuscularian mechanism aligns well
with the Hobbesian view. Sharing these similar presuppositions, it come as no
surprise that the view of mind, and particularly the view of volition Locke
articulates, is very similar to the view produced by Hobbes. Like Hobbes, in his first
attempt, Locke seems to think that the problem of free will can be cleared away once
we get clear on the nature of power. In Locke’s initial attempt at free will it appears
that he views the issue as a pseudo-problem, or as a sort of category mistake. The
basic problem, thinks Locke, is that people mistakenly believe that the will can be
free when in fact, it is the person who is free. Freedom is a “power” and so is the
will. Powers don’t apply to other powers, but instead they apply to agents. The way
to make clear the source of this error is by recourse to careful definitions.
The general strategy in Locke’s first pass at the problem is to be clear about the fact
that there are no faculties of the mind. There are dangers to thinking this way. For
11
“Animal Spirits” here means a very subtle fluid.
See also Bk.4, chpt.3, sections 26-28: “’Tis evident that the bulk, figure, and
motion of several Bodies about us, produce in us several Sensations, as of Colours,
Sounds, Tastes, Smells, Pleasure, and Pain, etc. These mechanical Affections of
Bodies, having no affinity at all with those Ideas, they produce in us…we can have
no distinct knowledge of such Operations beyond our Experience.”
12
13
The qualities appealed to are those qualities that are required for thinking of
bodies as interacting according to mechanical principles alone.
58
instance, doing so can allow us to conceive of faculties as distinct agents with their
“several Provinces and Authorities” (Locke, Essay, 117). In this case thinking of
volition as a faculty could lead to thinking that a faculty can have a power, such as
freedom. It can also give the impression of being explanatory without doing the
kind of explanatory work demanded by the mechanistic worldview. Explaining
mental phenomena in terms of faculties is akin to saying that the “digestive faculty”
is responsible for digestion, the “motive faculty” is responsible for motion, and the
“expulsive faculty” is responsible for making things come out of the body (121). In
just the same way Locke argues, we might say that the “Understanding, understood;
and the elective Faculty, or the Will, willed or commanded” (ibid). Thinking of the
mind in terms of faculties is the result of the common use of language, not fitting for
careful philosophical thought 14.
Clear in his conviction that mistaken talk of faculties is at the root of the nonproblem of free will, Locke then provides a definition of volition:
Volition, ‘tis plain, is nothing but the actual choosing or preferring
forbearance to the doing, or doing to the forbearance, of any
particular Action in our power, that we think on. And what is the
Will, but the Faculty to do this? And is that Faculty anything more
in effect, than a Power, the power of preferring any Action to its
Forbearance, or vice versa, as far as it appears to depend on us? For
can it be denied, that whatever Agent has a power to think on its
own Actions, and to prefer their doing or omission either to other,
has that Faculty call’d Will. Will then is nothing but such a power;
Liberty, on the other side, is the power a Man has to do or forbear
doing any particular Action, according as its doing or forbearance
14
Despite having said this, in the first edition, Locke presents the will as “that
Faculty” that is the power of the mind to prefer any particular action to its
forbearance, or vice versa (117). He goes on further to discuss the will in its
relationship to “commands” from the understanding.
59
has the actual preference in the Mind, which is the same thing as to
say, according as he himself wills it. (119)
On his first pass, Locke, like Hobbes, advances a view of the will that is consequent
to his mechanistic empiricism. The account is empiricist because of the empiricist
dogma that all knowledge originates in the senses, combined with the basic
orientation toward the senses as the source of knowledge. Given the corpuscularian
universe—mechanistic and lawful—the movement of particles including those that
comprise mental phenomena such as willing is determined. The will is thus
determined. What this amounts to is that once the will has “spoken,” a person has
no choice to intervene or redirect it. This is evident when Locke writes,
A Man in respect of willing any Action in his power once proposed
to this Thoughts, cannot be free…for it being unavoidable that the
Action depending on his Will, should exist, or not exist; and its
existence, or not existence, following perfectly the determination,
and preference of his Will, he cannot avoid willing the existence, or
not existence, of that Action; it is absolutely necessary that he will
the one, or the other, i.e., prefer the one to the other: since one of
them must necessarily follow; and that which does follow, follows
by the choice and determination of his Mind; that is, by his willing
it: for if he did not will it, it would not be. (122)
A man cannot “will what he wills” – in other words, we do not have the capacity to
change what it is that the will does or prefers—it moves according to antecedent
factors. Locke rejects the very idea that we could will what we will, on the grounds
that this would invoke an antecedent will, and the very same question could then be
posed regarding that will, and so on, ad infinitum. He affirms: “where-ever one
stops [in the regress], the Actions of the last Will cannot be free” (122).
Rejecting the infinite regress consequence in the first edition, Locke’s alternatives
60
are either that our preferences are the product of chance, or that they are
necessitated. And if an initial preference was necessitated, then it must also have
been involuntary. Given that, then it appears that all of our actions spring from what
is initially outside of our control. Notice that as a consequence of the definitions of
Locke’s terms, this would not make all of the actions that were to follow involuntary
or unfree; they could still be said to be in accord with, or contrary to our preference,
and as a result they would be voluntary. But because freedom and volition have
been defined by reference to preference, it would follow that preference itself is not
something that could be properly said to be free. This may have been why Locke
maintained that the notions of freedom and volition could not be applied to the will
itself. Since voluntary acts and free acts are defined in terms of preference,
preference itself cannot be voluntary or free without circularity.
Locke offers a justification for his view on empirical grounds. He argues that it is
manifest in “every one’s experience” that people don’t have the power to change
what it is that they prefer. We are “indifferent” to what it is that pleases us. He
writes:
…Volition or Willing…is nothing but the preferring the doing of any
thing, to the not doing of it; Action to Rest, & contra. Well, but
what is this Preferring? It is nothing but the being pleased more
with the one, than the other. Is then a Man indifferent to be pleased,
or not pleased, more with the one than the other? Is it in his choice,
whether he will, or will not be better pleased with one thing than
another? And to this, I think, every one’s Experience is ready to
make answer, No. (123)
It follows as a matter of Locke’s definitions that an individual’s will aims at what
they understand to be the good for them. Problems arise, Locke explains, because we
are apt to choose a present happiness over a long-range happiness (126). “[W]hen
we compare present Pleasure or Pain with future, we often make wrong Judgments
61
of them, taking our measures of them in different positions of distance” (127). The
remedy is to look beyond this world and consider the happiness that will attend us in
eternal life. Considering that “God the righteous Judge will render to every Man
according to his Deeds” we would be wiser to look to the long-range happiness
produced by genuinely good action” (ibid).
Critical Reception by Locke’s Contemporaries
Locke’s first pass at the issue of free will was not well received by his
contemporaries. Joseph Priestley wrote that Locke’s chapter was “remarkably
confused.” He recognized the reason for this being that the general maxims were
consistent with, and even implies the doctrine of necessity, which is inconsistent
with liberty, which Locke attributes to man (Harris, 38). Famously, in a letter from
Dublin, dated December 22, 1692, Molyneux remarked that Locke’s initial treatment
of free will “seems so wonderfully fine spun…that at least the Great Question of
Liberty and Necessity seems to Vanish.” Molyneux identified the problem of
intellectualism, making man’s wrongs spring from faulty understanding, and thereby
undermining moral responsibility. He wrote that the view,
seem[s] to make all Sins to proceed from our Understandings, or to
be against Conscience, and not at all from the Depravity of our
Wills. Now it seems harsh to say, that a Man shall be Damn’d,
because he understands no better than he does. (Locke, 1978, 600601)
This picture removed praiseworthiness and blameworthiness from human behaviour,
and removed the moral dimension to acts of willing. Given these and other
problems, Locke, too, was unhappy with his first pass and decided to rethink his
account. His second pass would see Locke entrench more deeply into his empiricist
leanings, focusing even more on what is true in one’s experience. This
62
entrenchment into the subjective would butt up even more strongly against the
principles of the New Science.
“Second Thoughts” (1694): Focus on Self-Observation
The second edition of the Essay came out in 1694, four years after the first edition.
This version presents a longer, more complex view of volition. Locke made
important changes to his view of mind that is at least partly, an attempt to deal with
the critical reception of his first attempt. In this version there is a greater focus on
accounting for the empirical evidence that, people as a matter of fact, often do not
choose to act according to the good. This reaffirmation of the important role of
empirical evidence—subjective though it is in this case—makes clearer Locke’s
commitment to empiricist principles. Yet at the same time, Locke also reaffirms and
makes stronger his commitment to the moral dimension of conscious human action.
The struggle of making these two consistent comes out clearly in the text. The
changes to the model of mind Locke presents include changes to the relationship
between willing and preference, what motivates an agent, as well the suspension of
the will.
Firstly, the definition of volition Locke offers in the second edition changes
significantly. In the first edition will was identified with preference. In the revised
edition, volition is defined as an act of the mind, “knowingly exerting that Dominion
it takes it self to have over any part of the man by imploying it in, or withholding it
from any particular Action” (128). The will is no longer preference, which would be
akin to feeling, but instead it is an act of the mind. In the new conception the mind
has the ability to direct both thought and preferences. Locke writes, “[T]he
Mind…continues the Action or puts an end to it: Whereby it is manifest it orders and
directs one in preference to, or neglect of the other, and thereby either the
continuation, or change becomes unavoidably voluntary” (131). This change is
significant because it works to remove the brute emotionality or impulsive nature of
the will. The will is an act of the mind, where the mind is like a miniature agent that
63
makes choices and directs activity. Responsibility for action falls naturally out of
this conception. Since this change in definition is stipulative, it doesn’t require
argument or justification, nor is any provided. This is just what Locke thinks in his
“second thoughts.” And yet this change has important consequences for his broader
model of mind.
When the mind is modeled such that it directs preference, an important move away
from the Hobbesian picture has taken place. On that model, feeling and thought
work in tandem with one another to produce action: the thoughts conceive of
possibilities while passion or feeling produces motivation and movement. Each of
these elements is necessary for action, and neither is more significant than the other;
they do not exist in a hierarchy of importance or leadership. But when the mind
directs preference an important change in the role of feeling takes place. Feeling
loses its former significance as the motivator for action. Consequently what we see
in the 1694 version is additional changes to the account of motivation.
In the first edition, Locke affirms that it is the “Good” that determines the will:
“Good then, the greater Good is that alone which determines the Will”. But in the
second edition, and under “stricter enquiry,” Locke decides that, “good, the greater
good” (135) is not what determines the will, until our desire is “raised
proportionably to it, [and] makes us uneasie in the want of it”. This is very likely the
result of Locke’s meditation on what experience shows. In fact, experience shows
clearly that people don’t actually often pursue the greatest good or act in accordance
with it. In fact the “infinitely greatest confessed good [is] often neglected to satisfie
the successive uneasiness of our desires pursuing trifles” (135). Locke’s strategy
here is to take the empirical phenomena as his starting point and work to explain and
justify it. Since the good is also neglected because of the desire for something
trifling, this requires a new role for desire in Locke’s account.
In the first edition the will is moved by the desire for the good. But since action
does not necessarily point at the good, it doesn’t seem to make sense that a
64
privation—or something that is absent—could be motivational in the right sort of
way. In the second edition therefore, it is not desire for the good that moves the will,
but instead it is something present: the uneasiness of our desires. Locke’s thinking
seems to be that a person is moved by some thing, as opposed to being moved by the
absence of something. What’s more, the will cannot be identical with desire, because
we know from experience that the will and desire often run counter; action runs one
way, while desire may run the other way. This is a significant change that helps to
clear the way for a justification for the restoration of blameworthiness and the moral
dimension more generally. When it was the good that moved the will, people could
only be blamed for not understanding what it is that the good consists in—and this is
hardly ground for punishment. Such a person ought rather to be the recipient of
education. But when it is the uneasiness of our own desires that determines the will,
coupled with the claim that the mind directs preferences, then the groundwork has
been laid for praise or blame to accrue to an agent based on how well one orders
one’s preferences. And this in fact, is exactly what Locke argues for.
The third significant change Locke makes in the second edition is to claim that it is
within a man’s power to change the pleasantness and unpleasantness of something
by considering the consequences of that action. Agents are responsible for
conditioning themselves such that they desire the right sorts of things, and feel
uneasy about the right sorts of things by directing the mind accordingly. “Men may
and should correct their palates” (149). We go against what our natural impulses are
when it is in our best interest to do so. For example, thinking of the health and
strength that will result in taking an “ill relish’d potion” moves us to take our
medicine. The consideration of outcomes changes the way we feel about various
actions. Locke argues that it is our responsibility, and we ought to take pains to
rectify, the wrong ideas we have as a result of bad habits. Doing so helps us to take
delight in it, and thereby create motivation, for something we would otherwise rather
not do. In other words, by considering the end of any given action, with use and
practice, we may come to feel differently about it. Locke writes, “Habits have
powerful charms, and put to strong attractions of easiness and pleasure into what we
65
accustom our selves to, that we cannot forbear to do” (149). In other words, by
considering long-range outcomes versus short-range outcomes, man can choose a
better action.
This claim seems to imply an ability to intervene on action that has all the requisite
antecedent causes behind it. And indeed, this is what Locke has in mind. He writes
that the mind has a “power to suspend the execution and satisfaction of any of its
desires.” This is a significant departure from Locke’s original straightforwardly
determinist position, whereby antecedent causes are sufficient for action. But
without changing any of his previous statements about his commitment to New
Science principles that are at the heart of his determinism, he simply affirms that
ability to suspend the will. Because of the significance of this claim, it is worthwhile
to quote Locke in full on this point:
For the mind having in most cases, as is evident in Experience, a
power to suspend the execution and satisfaction of any of its desires;
and so all one after another is at liberty to consider the objects in
them; examine them on all sides, and weigh them with others. In
this lies the liberty Man has; and from the not using of it right comes
all that variety of mistakes, errors, and faults, we run into, in the
conduct of our lives, and our endeavours after happiness; whilst we
precipitate the determination of our wills, and engage too soon
before due Examination. To prevent this we have a power to
suspend the prosecution of this or that desire, as every one dayly
may Experiment in himself…For during this suspension of any
desire, before the will be determined to action, and the action (which
follow that determination) done, we have the opportunity to
examine, view, and judge, of the good or evil of what we are going
to do; and when, upon due Examination, we have judg’d, we have
done our duty, all that we can, or ought to do. (141)
66
Locke affirms that it is the great privilege of finite intellectual beings that we can
suspend desires and stop ourselves from determining our wills to any action until we
have had the opportunity to examine the “good and evil of it” (143). What this
means is that agents are responsible for considering outcomes, and for ordering
themselves accordingly. We mistakenly judge what is in our long-range interest
because of what Locke calls “the weak and narrow Constitution of our Minds”
(147). 15
By reverse-engineering these changes in his text, it is clear that they are designed at
least in part, to account for the phenomenon of people making poor choices.
Crucially for my themes, Locke takes this as empirical data and creates a place for it
in his larger view. But the changes also serve to affirm the moral dimension, and to
justify punishment and blame. Locke doesn’t simply account for the phenomenon of
poor choices—he also makes significant changes to the structure of mind such that
action arises as it does. Without making changes to the New Science framework
within which he works, Locke simply affirms that the agent has the ability to
suspend the will—something that should not be possible on a deterministic view.
Yet he gives no indication that he has abandoned the determinism that is part and
parcel of his corpuscularian mechanism. Affirming that individuals can suspend
their will, and that they can and should correct their palettes or condition themselves
to want the right sorts of things, lends itself to a libertarian view of volition.
New Problems
The changes in the second edition created problems of interpretation, but they also
created additional problems. More specifically, these are the problems of
intellectualism, not being explanatory, methodological problems, and theoretical
problems. I’ll take each of these in turn.
15
Of course, the charge of intellectualism raises its head again here. If our minds
are weak, can we be blamed for that? If an agent fails to properly understand what is
in his or her interest and thereby to act accordingly, they ought to be the recipient of
education, not punishment.
67
In response to the first edition, Molyneux for one, identified the problem of
intellectualism. By making wrong action spring from failures of the understanding it
becomes unjust to punish wrong action. In the second edition, Locke runs into this
problem in a different way. By putting the mind or the understanding in the position
of guiding and directing the preferences and the will, it is the intellect that is
ultimately responsible for action. The problem is that if the understanding is
responsible for right action, then failure to act rightly represents a failure of the
understanding, and failures of understanding are not the kind of failures that warrant
punishment. Instead, they warrant compassion, education, and/or rehabilitation. By
putting the mind in the position of guide, Locke falls back into the problem of
intellectualism.
The second problem is that Locke’s account is not explanatory in the appropriate
way. Even if we accept that the mind can suspend or interrupt the will, Locke
doesn’t provide any explanation as to how this can be so. Within Locke’s
explanatory framework, what is required is an account of by what mechanism this
might take place. And given Locke’s acceptance of the corpuscular theory, there is
an especially important need to say something about how the antecedent causes that
give rise to feelings and thoughts might be interrupted in a way that is consistent
with that theory. And yet, Locke provides no guidance on this matter. His account
lacks appropriate explanatory accountability.
In addition to falling back into intellectualism, and not being explanatory, there is
also a theoretical problem internal to this account. In particular, when Locke
separates the passions or feelings from the understanding to allow the understanding
the right kind of dominion over the person, his account of action falls apart. Like
Hobbes, Locke thinks that passion is necessary for action, because it is motivational,
while reason is, in itself, inert. In separating passion and understanding there is no
longer any explanation as to how action can arise. Without passion to create
68
movement, it isn’t clear how it works together with thought to create action. It is
unclear how or why passion should be involved at all.
Finally, the account suffers from a methodological problem. The issue is this: it’s
difficult to understand how observation of the behaviour of the mind could provide
evidence for a non-deterministic conception of willing. In other words, no matter
what is observed in the mind, it is difficult to see what could, in principle, constitute
evidence that the mind’s behaviour is not necessitated. The issue of the necessity of
behaviour or action is justified on extra-empirical grounds, so to speak. It is a
consequence of one’s theoretical commitments that have been made prior to internal
observation. Observation cannot provide evidence of a deterministic, or a nondeterministic universe. There is nothing in the phenomena that could be sufficient to
warrant changing from a view that the will is determined to a view that it is free in
the libertarian sense. Even if there was something that could provide this evidence
in principle, Locke does not offer any such evidence.
Whether or not Locke was aware of all of the difficulties, it’s clear that he remained
unsatisfied with his own account. He continued to rework the text up until the time
of his death, revising it in a third, fourth, and fifth edition. The changes are
relatively minor in the third and fourth editions, and so I skip over those here and
move directly to the fifth edition. In this posthumously published edition, Locke
entrenches his empiricism focusing even more on what self-observation shows. He
also asserts even more strongly the responsibility that an agent has in acting rightly.
Fifth Edition Revisions (1706)
In the fifth edition, Locke again changes what it is that determines the will. This
time, the will is determined by desire, and is guided by judgment. In addition to this,
Locke makes even more explicit his view that agents have the ability to suspend the
determination of choice. It is as though Locke is making theoretical space for
contemplation as a wedge into what would otherwise be determined. Because of the
69
significance of this passage, and because of its openness to interpretation, I quote it
here in full:
But yet there is a case wherein a Man is at Liberty in respect of
Willing, and that is the chusing of a remote Good as an end to be
pursued. Here a Man may suspend the act of his choice from being
determined for or against the thing proposed, ‘till he has examined,
whether it be really of a nature in its self, and consequences to make
him happy or no. For when he has once chosen it, and thereby it is
become a part of his Happiness, it raises desire, and that
proportionably gives him uneasiness, which determines his Will,
and sets him at work in pursuit of his choice on all occasions that
offer. (Locke, 270) 16
The passage suggests that an agent can knowingly choose to condition his or her
own desires through contemplation, and thereby causes their will to be determined to
provide more considered, long-range happiness. Once again, it seems plausible that
this is something that Locke finds when he looks to his experience. So his
empiricism, in one sense of that term, is playing a part. But this change brings along
with it some important theoretical consequences that don’t sit well with his
commitment to the New Science.
Firstly, the question arises why and how the ability to suspend should be possible
only in certain cases? To be more accurate, only in a particular case? It is as though
the freedom to suspend volitional determinism is meant to apply in the case where a
person really wants to gain a long-term benefit, even if that means suffering or pain
in the short term. And on a certain view of the phenomenon of choosing, this makes
sense. It does seem as though people sometimes act on impulse, even though it is not
to their benefit. At the same time, there are many cases where individuals delay
gratification, and don’t indulge their impulses. But hasn't Locke gone too far in
16
Fifth edition revisions are found in the Nidditch edition.
70
accommodating the phenomenon here? This exception appears ad hoc, out of line
with most of the rest of his view, and without any theoretical explanation or
justification.
There are several other places where Locke makes changes to his wording to reflect
the ability of individuals to suspend short-term gratification. For example, in earlier
versions the text read, “This then is evident, A Man is not at liberty to will, or not to
will any thing in his power, that he once considers of: Liberty consisting in a power
to act, or not to act, and in that only.” In the fifth edition the same section reads,
This then is evident, That in all proposals of present Action, a Man
is not at liberty to will, or not to will, because he [can] forbear
willing: Liberty consisting in a power to act, or to forbear acting,
and in that only. (246)
The change indicates a shift in emphasis to proposals of present action. Once again,
Locke is making a new distinction between the kind of choice a person makes that
requires action in the present moment, and the kind of choice that allows for time
spent in contemplation of outcomes. Re-establishing the moral dimension of volition
may have been the very purpose behind this change. In support of this
interpretation, Locke alludes to the ways in which a person may “justly incur
punishment.” Locke acknowledges that a man wills what he thinks is the best
action, and that action is judged to be good by the understanding. And yet, this
doesn’t excuse a man, because in choosing poorly, he conditions himself to be more
likely to make a similar poor choice in the future. He has thereby “vitiated his own
palate.” It is as though there is desire that creates various impulses to action on the
one hand, and on the other hand, there is judgment that takes a look at those options
and chooses wisely, after careful consideration. The more poor choices are made,
the more likely they will be made in the future, because we become conditioned
from past experience. Just in the way that a bad habit is easier to stick with than to
change, and a good habit is easier to stick with through practice, aiming at the good
71
is the agent’s moral responsibility because of the fact that we can think and choose
accordingly. That is to say, we have freedom of choice in the libertarian sense. And
this is why we can, and ought to be blamed, and punished, for bad actions. Since
one has the power to, “suspend his determination” in order that he might take care of
his happiness and make choices that lead to happiness, punishment is just:
And here we may see how it comes to pass, that a Man may justly
incur punishment, though it be certain that in all the particular
actions that he wills, he does, and necessarily does will that which
he then judges to be good. For though his will be always
determined by that which is judg’d good by his Understanding, yet
it excuses him not: Because, by a too hasty choice of his own
making, he has imposed on himself wrong measures of good and
evil; which however false and fallacious, have the same influence on
all his future conduct as if they were true and right. He has vitiated
his own Palate, and must be answerable to himself for the sickness
and death that follows from it…He had a Power to suspend his
determination: It was given him, that he might examine, and take
care of his own Happiness, and look that he were not deceived. And
he could never judge, that it was better to be deceived, than not in a
matter of so great and near concernment. (270-271)
Close to the conclusion of the chapter, Locke writes that not only is there a case in
which a man may suspend his choice, but even further, that he has the ability to
suspend the satisfaction of any particular desire. Locke thinks that the will can be
suspended from any action until the good that might come out of it has been
“maturely” examined. Locke affirms that if we were determined by anything other
than desire guided by judgment, we would not be free. “The result of our judgment
upon that Examination, is what ultimately determines the Man, who could not be
free, if his will were determin’d by any thing, but his own desire guided by his own
72
Judgment” (283). This appears to be full blown libertarian conception of free will.
This is a complete reversal of Locke’s original view.
Problems & Inconsistencies
Over the course of the revisions to Of Power a number of internal inconsistencies
and problems arise. One of the most glaring inconsistencies is Locke’s adherence to
both the corpuscular mechanistic framework that is married to a deterministic world
picture, and a libertarian sense of freedom. Locke doesn’t make any clear attempt to
modify his commitment to the former. Neither does he acknowledge the
inconsistency. This makes it unclear and open to interpretation whether he is in fact,
a determinist or a libertarian. One might think that given his apparent adherence to
both views, the best interpretation is that Locke is a compatibilist. But this doesn’t
follow. Recall that compatibilism is the view that determinism is compatible with
moral responsibility. Locke never argues for this. What’s more, his view doesn’t
amount to that claim—on Locke’s view moral responsibility derives from the fact
that the individual can suspend the act of choice.
Another problem that remains from the second edition through the fifth is that the
charge of intellectualism still stands. If desire is to be guided by judgment, then it is
the understanding that is at fault for not correcting desire, and guiding it
appropriately. What’s more, the question also arises as to whether judgment is itself
determined. If so, then we still do not have the freedom requisite to dole out just
punishment. And if not, then our failures of judgment are failures of the intellect,
not moral ones. If we fail to understand what is the good, then we ought to be the
objects of pity and compassion, not blame and retribution. Judgment functions
normatively in Locke’s account. But how the normative dimension enters into the
account in a way that leaves judgment neither completely intellectual, and thereby
inert, nor completely emotional, and thereby beyond the agent’s control, is not at all
clear.
73
Finally, there is the problem of accounting for action. If the intellectual, judging,
part of the mind can intervene on impulses, then the motivational part of volition is
suspended, and cannot do its work. Providing the understanding with the ability to
intervene on the passions removes the important role that passions are meant to have
as motivators for action. If agents are not moved by pleasures or uneasiness, then
it’s not clear how they are moved at all.
Critical Reception of Later Editions
From Locke’s Contemporaries
Since Locke’s time, commentators have spilled much ink attempting to find Locke’s
“final position” on liberty and volition. The inconsistent text provides evidence that
supports the interpretation of Locke as a hard determinist, a libertarian and a
compatibilist, although these positions are mutually exclusive. Harris recites some
interpretations of Locke’s contemporaries. Anthony Collins interprets Locke as
supporting Hobbesian necessitarianism on the grounds that the essence of freedom,
for Locke, is liberty from outward impediments, and not liberty from necessity
(Harris, 36). Supporting this is the fact that Locke expresses the absurdity in the
question as to whether we are free in our choices. For Collins, Locke simply
confuses things by talking about the power of suspension. Jonathan Edwards and
Joseph Priestley also consider Locke a necessitarian who unnecessarily created
confusion in his later attempts to accommodate elements of libertarianism (38).
Joseph Berington and James Gregory argue that Locke was a libertarian. A
libertarian reading is encouraged by the fact that the doctrine of suspension implies
the power of self-determination (39).
Just as Locke’s contemporaries argued that he belonged to one or another camp,
many modern interpretations of Locke argue in this manner also. Such arguments
often include the proviso that while Locke did hold such and such a position he did
so not in the “usual” way.
74
A Libertarian Interpretation
Chappell (1994) argues that Locke is a certain kind of libertarian, on the grounds
that Locke believes in “human freedom” (101). For Chappell, Locke’s conception
of freedom is different from many libertarian philosophers because Locke argues
that all actions have causes, including free ones. Despite the fact that Locke argues
at times that free action is impossible, he agrees with the usual libertarian that free
actions depend on volitions (86). Chappell concludes that Locke’s “final position”
is that the idea of suspension is incompatible with volitional determinism. Since
there is suspension, then volitional determinism must be false. Indeed, there are free
volitions—occasions were a man is free with respect to his willing (103). Chappell
deals with the inconsistencies in Locke’s text by claiming that Locke simply “did
not make all the adjustments that a full change of view would have called for” (87).
Despite arguing for a libertarian Locke, Chappell concludes, “Nothing that I have
said in this chapter, however, should be taken to imply that…I even understand the
general theory of will and volition that underlies Locke’s view of freedom” (104).
This is, in my view, a good reason for dismissing this interpretation. But another
reason is that, given the extensive time and attention that Locke clearly spent in
revising this work, it is strange to suggest that he simply failed to make all the
necessary revisions to clean up the Hobbesian sections. If Locke really did change
his view wholesale, and he bothered to make extensive revisions to the text, it is
mysterious why he would not indicate that in his revisions, which he clearly spent
much time and attention on.
A Compatibilist Interpretation
Prolific Locke scholar, Gideon Yaffe (2000) argues for a compatibilist Locke. This
is on the grounds that it is “possible for Locke” to arrange the connection between
our choices and the good even if man is “under necessity” (373). Yaffe admits that
there is an interpretive problem of how to reconcile the “seeming Hobbesianisms” of
75
the first thirty sections of the chapter together with the “seeming incompatibilism” of
the later sections of the chapter (387). Yaffe deals with the inconsistencies by
arguing for a “philosophically radical” conclusion. He argues that, “when we talk
about free will…we are not talking about an ability to choose or refrain from choice”
(373). He writes,
When we use the term ‘free will’ the word ‘free’ doesn’t mean what
we naturally think it means. This doesn’t tell us what we really
mean by the term, but it does open the door to a particular strategy
for answering the question: perhaps a proper account of freedom of
will tells us what we need to be like if we are to exemplify the ideal
of agency after which we strive. (387)
Yaffe’s interpretation also faces some important problems. The first is that his view
is, as Chappell rightly puts it, “sometimes so intricate and subtle as to be hard to
follow” (Chappell, 422). It also seems strained, and incompatible with what Locke
says in his text. Locke never says that there is something more to genuine free
agency than freedom of action. On the other hand, in one passage, Locke seems to
say that this is all the freedom that there is (Chappell 423). Even if such an
interpretation could be defended, it still doesn’t answer the question as to what it is,
for Locke, that confers upon human action what Yaffe calls “the Elusive Something”
that makes out the difference between action that is fully morally accountable and
that which is not (Lowe 2005, 130). Another problem is that nowhere does Locke
make an explicit argument to the effect that he understands freedom to be
compatible with necessitarianism. Neither does Locke make any argument against
Hobbesian necessity, nor does he make a case for its incompatibility with freedom
and moral responsibility (Harris 2007, 20-21). In other words, Locke never argues
for compatibilism.
Given that Locke’s initial formulation reads as straightforwardly determinist, and
there is no reason to think that Locke gave up on the view of the workings of the
76
universe that leads to determinism, one might think that his apparent defense of
freedom in later editions amounts to compatibilism. Given that Locke seems to
argue both for a universe comprised of tiny particles operating according to
universal laws, and for freedom of choice, compatibilism seems like a natural
interpretation. But what’s missing is an account of how both can be true. Harris
(2007) emphasizes there is no indication as to how experience might be made
consistent with the mechanistic worldview. Unlike Locke, for example, Hume does
provide such an explanation in his compatibilist account of volition.
Real Tensions
There are some real and important tensions underlying Locke’s position on liberty
and volition that are the result of the constellation of unit-ideas of the New Science
and empiricism, as they are deployed to explain a libertarian sense of free volition.
There are three broad tensions that I discuss here. The first is the tension between
the New Science view that the natural world is passive, and Locke’s formulation of
volition as being a power. The second is the tension between the New Science tenet
that efficient causation is necessary and sufficient for explanation, combined with
Locke’s appeal to final causes for at least some human behaviour. And the third is
between Locke’s adherence to the mechanical world picture and the priority and
importance that he gives to the experience of freedom and suspension. Without an
adequate explanation of how content gets into this framework, the experiential
aspect of Locke’s empiricism appears to be smuggled in. 17 This is a tension between
New Science and Locke’s empiricism.
17
To see this clearly, contrast this view with Descartes’. The experiential or
phenomenal aspects of experience need not be derived from the mechanical picture
for Descartes, since mind is made of a different kind of stuff than the natural world.
Descartes runs into the problem of interaction—explaining how the material and
immaterial worlds interact. But this is a different problem from explaining how
subjectivity fits into a mechanical picture.
77
It is a tenet of the New Science that the natural world is entirely passive. In contrast
to the Aristotelian view, motion or change is not an actualization of some power in
the substance itself—there is a global elimination of powers from all natural
substances according to the New Science. There is a mechanization of the world
picture. Explanations of macro-level properties are explained in terms of particles
operating according to universal laws. These laws are deterministic. Efficient
causation is necessary and sufficient for explanations—appeal to final causes is
eschewed. Having been reminded of this, it begins to get clearer in what ways this
conflicts with Locke’s libertarian leanings. In his formulation of mind, Locke
defines volition as a power. Recall that this was at the heart of his initial rejection of
the idea of free will in the first edition. Locke argued that powers don’t have
powers—agents do. So in construing volition having power, Locke is either
stepping away from a consistent view of the natural world as passive, or he is setting
at least some aspects of mind apart from the natural world. Neither of these is
consistent with the idea that the mind is part of the natural world, and that the natural
world is passive.
Secondly, while efficient causation is supposed to be both necessary and sufficient
for explanations of the natural world, Locke appeals to a final cause in his
explanation of volition. Locke affirms, for example, that the will is determined by
the good. We could interpret him as saying that agents act as they do, that volition
acts in the manner in which it does, because they aim at the good. True enough,
Locke abandons this view in the fifth edition. In the fifth edition Locke argues that
agents choose as they do to avoid some uneasiness or desires. But this is just as
suggestive of final causation as is the good. The final cause is the end, or the sake
for which a thing is done. For example, the end of walking might be losing weight.
Just so, the end of free will is to relieve the uneasiness of desires. In this case, the
result of the relief of uneasiness is not just a coincidence—it is the sake for which
the action is done. Contrast this with the kind of explanation offered in terms of
efficient causation: the cause of behaviour is the movement of particles. Final causes
refer to teleological explanations, which make reference to the telos or the end of a
78
process. Locke’s later position appears to be a psychological teleological model. In
other words, this move represents the psychologizing of at least some aspect of the
natural world. The virtue of appealing to final causes is that they explain the
regularity of the connection between phenomena. Why does human action regularly
take place the way that it does? This is because of the urge to avoid uneasiness. The
final cause enters into the explanation as something that is good for the person—the
person is better off for it 18.
It is understandable why Locke appeals to the desire to be relieved of uneasiness.
We need only look to the reasons he provides, namely that it is manifest that this is
so, from experience. As mentioned, the later evolutions of Chapter 13 rely
increasingly on fidelity to what Locke observes about internal experience. Harris
(2007) rightly focuses on the emphasis of the role of experimental philosophy
Locke’s revisions. Harris reminds us that Locke is interested in more than the
concept of freedom, but that he also intends to be true to the experience of freedom.
Locke seeks to be true to the experience of what choice making and deliberation are
actually like (20). Harris sees Locke’s changes as designed to capture the
“phenomenology” of freedom that seems to disappear in his first edition (27). Harris
sees Locke as self-consciously turning away from metaphysical issues (derived from
the New Science), and toward an accurate account of the experience of freedom
(41). Locke’s desire to be true to the experience of choosing—which is an
expression of his empiricism—butts up against the mechanical world picture that he
also endorses. Taking seriously the internal experience of freedom and treating it
unproblematically—in other words, taking it as what it seems—creates a real tension
with the other theoretical commitments Locke has. One might maintain consistency
by claiming that the experiences of freedom and of “suspension” are illusory, but
this is not the option Locke takes.
18 At least, what the person takes to be good motivates their action.
79
The Trouble With the Search for a “Final Position”
While I understand and sympathize with the search for a “final position” for Locke
on liberty and volition, I think it is wrongheaded. Firstly, because the text just is
inconsistent, it legitimately admits of more than one interpretation. Each
interpretation, though supported by evidence, also suffers from serious problems
given inconsistent remarks from Locke. It can’t be decisive, therefore, to point to
evidence supporting one or another interpretation. What is needed is an argument
that one interpretation or another is supported by the text exclusively, or that there
are countervailing reasons for rejecting alternate interpretations. The claim that
Locke simply didn’t bother to make his revisions in later editions invites a view of
Locke as lazy and undisciplined—a strange view given how much time, attention,
and effort he clearly put into revising “Of Power.” What’s more, it is possible that
Locke did not make the adjustments necessary to make his text consistent for the
reason that he did not give up his commitment to those parts of his view that would
have called for adjusting.
For Locke to give up the Hobbesian portions of his work, Locke would have been
giving up on something that was apparently very important and fundamental to his
system. The view of the universe as passive, lawful, mechanistic, and deterministic
as articulated by the New Science was something held by almost all significant
thinkers of the Modern period, and Locke particularly. It’s not that the New Science
is incompatible with libertarianism. After all, Descartes adhered to the New
Science, and held a libertarian view of volition. But this option was available to
Descartes as a dualist—it is only the material world that operates according to the
principles of the New Science. That which is immaterial operates differently. And
as a rationalist, Descartes could avail himself of the intervention of rationality on
impulse. In a rationalist’s model like Descartes’, reason is higher than the bodily,
animalistic side of the human being, and it is meant to intervene on that side. But
for the empiricist, knowledge, and thus reason, is intimately tied to the body. Since
there is no knowledge without sense experience, the entire internal system of the
80
human being rests on a foundation of a kind of trust in the body. This makes it very
difficult to consistently and plausibly make the case for a view of volition that
intervenes on impulses. The first question for the empiricist who claims this is: why
should one part of the mind intervene on another? The second is: how could such a
thing happen?
What the textual evidence makes clear, I think, is the fact that Locke remained
troubled by the issues of free will until the time of his death. His posthumously
published revisions reflect that he moved even further from the position he took in
the first edition. Each time he published revisions, Locke continued to struggle,
making Chapter 13 longer and longer. For Locke to have had a “final” position
implies that the matter was settled for him. It also seems to imply a consistent
position—or at least one position that uniquely fits the text and excludes other
possible positions. But there is no reason to think that this is so. The text admits of
multiple possible positions, and this is evidence of the fact that Locke remained
unsettled. Rather than give up on theoretical commitments that were clearly
important to him and fail to indicate that, what’s more likely is that Locke did hold
both positions. In other words, Locke was both an adherent to the New Science and
Empiricism, and he believed in justly punishing those who acted badly. It doesn’t
follow from that that Locke was a compatibilist. He certainly didn’t argue for a
compatibilist position or gesture consciously that this was his aim. What follows
from this was that he did not immediately see how to make these two go together.
It’s not that Locke was entirely unconscious of the inconsistency—on the contrary, it
appears that he was working hard to perfect his views on liberty and volition. It
often happens in human psychology that disparate views are held simultaneously.
Reasoning through how to create consistency, or else drop one of the views, is a
process that takes time. So, the fact that these two don’t seem to go together is not
evidence that he didn’t hold both of them. It is entirely plausible that he held
inconsistent views. It appears that Locke was looking for a way to theorize how
81
both could be true, but thought that he just hadn’t articulated that yet. It is
inconsistency that is the impetus for belief revision, belief merging, and negotiation.
What the search for a final position reflects is a kind of philosophical bias toward
completion, decidability, and consistency. The demand for theoretical consistency is
only appropriate insofar as the theory is accurate—this is to say that if the universe
cannot be theorized within the confines of a consistent model, then inconsistency is
appropriate. The universe may not lend itself to description within one consistent
scheme. Empirical science teaches us, perhaps, that there is a fundamental
inconsistency in the features of the world (Cartwright, 2006). If this is indeed what
the empirical data show, then we might conclude that the world itself is inconsistent.
We might also conclude that an empiricist approach will not provide the kind of
theory that we desire, or that the combination of New Science and empiricism
produced the tensions in Locke’s account.
Conclusion
Given the realness of the tensions among the New Science, empiricism, and volition,
we ought not condemn Locke for changing his mind and being inconsistent. And
given the real tensions among the different versions of Locke’s text, each
interpretation of a standard position requires selectively ignoring other important
elements. It is fairly standard in a certain approach to philosophy to think of
consistency as an overriding virtue. But consistency for its own sake surely ought
not be considered this way. It’s important to remember what we want consistency
for, as well as to remember the virtues of inconsistency. We ought not try to
salvage Locke’s reputation by forcing him into one position or another. The
difficulty of interpretation arises from the fact that the text allows for multiple
interpretations. It is, in effect, “undecidable” because support can be found for a
number of positions. What we ought to do in this case is concede that there is no
settled, consistent, well-defined position. What’s important from my HIP
perspective is not what Locke the man thought, understood as his psychology.
82
Instead, what is important is what follows from the ideas that are in his text, how
they work, or don’t work in combination with one another. Just as much, if not
more value might be had by understanding tensions and problems as might be had
from over-emphasizing consistency. For example, Hobbes’ work on volition is
remarkably consistent—and yet it leaves the image of the human being as a
clockwork entity. It leaves out some important elements that are important to not
only our conception of us, but also to making sense of our behaviour. True, we
might affirm that freedom of choice is a kind of illusion, and thereby also affirm that
the moral dimension is a kind of illusion. But we would still be left in need of an
explanation as to how such an illusion could be possible. 19
I suggest that we ought to appreciate the fact that Locke was willing to work out his
ideas publicly, making clear and exposing the problems inherent to that particular
constellation of ideas. From the vantage point of the 21st century it may appear
obvious that these notions don’t go together. It is at least partly because of the work
that Locke and others like him did, that this may appear obvious. Certainly what
was entailed by the mechanistic worldview was not obvious during the time in
which Locke wrote. Newton, for example, had argued against advancing
mechanistic explanations, although he did adhere for the most part, to the tenets of
the New Science. How exactly to apply the New Science to philosophical problems
was an open question. There is a great deal of value in witnessing how problems are
created and arise, not just in coming up with a resolution (which are also, almost
without fail, subject to their own corresponding objections and problems). Locke
ought to be considered an intellectual hero for his drive to resolve the problem, and
to “show his work” publicly.
19
We might affirm an empiricist standard of semantics, and claim as Hume does,
that such talk is meaningless, and thus needs no explanation. But there are
countervailing reasons why this might not be an attractive option over all. There are,
after all, few empiricists as extreme as Hume for good reason.
83
Works Cited
Atherton, Margaret. “Corpuscles, Mechanism, and Essentialism in Locke,” in
Journal of the History of Philosophy, 29 (1991): 33.
Bramhall, John. “Selections From Bramhall, A Defense of True Liberty,” Hobbes
and Bramhall: On Liberty and Necessity. Ed. Vere Chappell. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
Chappell, Vere. “Liberty Worth the Name: Locke on Free Agency by Gideon
Yaffe” (Review). Mind, 113.450, 2004. 420-424.
---. “Locke on Freedom of the Will.” Locke. Ed. Vere Chapell, Oxford University
Press, 1998. Print.
---. “Locke on the Freedom of the Will.” Locke’s Philosophy: Content and
Context. Ed. G.A.J. Rogers. Clarendon Press, 1994. Print.
Downing, Lisa. “The Status of Mechanism in Locke’s Essay.” The Philosophical
Review, 107.3 (July 1998), 381-414.
Garrett, Don. “Liberty and Suspension in Locke’s Theory of the Will,” A
Companion to Locke, Ed. Matthew Stuart. Wiley-Blackwell, 2016. 260-178.
Print.
Harris, James. Of Liberty and Necessity. Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.
Lennon, Tom. The Battle of The Gods and Giants. Princeton University Press,
1993. Print.
Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1st edition), London,
1690. Early English Books Online. Web, 2014.
---. (2nd edition) London, 1694. Early English Books Online. Web, 2014.
---. (5th edition) Ed. Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. Print.
---. The Correspondence of John Locke, vol. 4. (Ed.) E.S. De Beer. Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1978. Print.
Lowe, E.J. Locke. New York: Routledge, 2005. Print.
Rogers, G. A. J. “Boyle, Locke, and Reason.” Journal of the History of Ideas, 27. 2
(April – June, 1966), pp. 205-216.
---. Locke’s Philosophy: Content and Context. Oxford University Press, 1994. Print.
Salter, Alan, and Wolfe, Charles T. “Empiricism contra Experiment: Harvey, Locke
84
and the Revisionist View of Experimental Philosophy.” Bull. Hist. Epistem.
Sci. Vie, 2009, 16.2, 113-140.
Yaffe, Gideon. “Locke on Refraining, Suspending, and the Freedom to Will.”
History of Philosophy Quarterly, Oct. 2001, 18.4, 373-91.
---. Liberty Worth the Name: Locke on Free Agency. Princeton University Press,
2000. Print.
85
Chapter Four
Hume the Metaphysician? A Response to Buckle
We are to admit not more causes of natural things than such as are both true and
sufficient to explain their appearances ~ Isaac Newton
Introduction
In the previous two chapters, the works of both Hobbes and Locke have served as
examples of the range of possible constellations of empiricism and the New Science
available to a philosopher in the Modern period, as they attempt to explain aspects of
mind. In the second chapter we saw the surprisingly strong model of mind that
Hobbes produced out of austere conceptual resources. These resources were
constrained by Hobbes’ doctrine that everything which is in the mind was first in the
senses, coupled with the constraints imposed by the New Science, particularly the
view that mind be explained with the properties that were attributed to the natural
world. In the third chapter, we saw that Locke’s subsequent attempt to explain a
libertarian kind of volition within the confines of the properties of the natural world
created important problems. These problems are particular to the empiricist, who
opts to explain phenomena fundamentally by reference to sensation and sensory
experience. What these examples show is how some aspects of mind can be
explained within the space allowed by these conceptual constraints, and how the
conceptual tools afforded by empiricism and the New Science work together to
produce a certain kind of view. Like any framework however, there are problems
that arise as well. The adequacy of the framework and conceptual tools depends in
part on the particular way that they are deployed. The kind of empiricism, and the
degree of it are important factors in developing a relatively stable and plausible
model of mind. So too, as we will see in the present paper, are the parts of the New
Science that a thinker takes on, and which ones are left out. Understanding this is
important for correctly identifying the sources of tension within a system or model
of mind. Without having this understanding, it becomes possible to get our lines
86
crossed about which theoretical commitment is the source of a particular problem
that appears on the surface of the model.
In this paper I expose just this kind of mistake. More particularly, I look at Stephen
Buckle’s recent misinterpretation of Hume on volition. Based on the striking
resemblance Hume’s account of volition bears to Hobbes’, Buckle argues that
Hume’s view is implicitly materialist. Here I show that it is not any implicitly
shared materialism between Hume and Hobbes that accounts for their similar views
of volition. Instead, what accounts for the similarity is the similar constellation of
ideas that combine in each thinker’s commitment to both empiricism and the New
Science. Given that Hume’s refrain is that he is not engaged in metaphysics, all
other things being equal, the interpretation that respects those assertions is the better
one. What Buckle’s mistake illustrates and emphasizes is how important the
analysis of unit-ideas is to accurately understanding and interpreting the
relationships among empiricism, New Science, and aspects of mind.
The game plan for this chapter is as follows. First, I provide an overview of
Hobbes’ account of volition as it is grounded in his understanding of both
empiricism and the New Science. Following that, I provide exegesis on Hume’s
version of both empiricism and the New Science, paying particular attention to how
it is similar to, though distinct from, Hobbes’. Finally, I analyze Buckle’s case. I
argue that while he gets both Hume and Hobbes mostly right on volition, it is his
failure to recognize and appreciate the way that the constellation of concepts is
involved in both empiricism and the New Science that produces the broad similarity
between Hume and Hobbes, while at the same time the small but relevant
differences and nuances between them account for their differing metaphysical
positions.
87
Reminder: POH and HIP
Before getting to that, I wish to remind my reader one last time of my
historiographical approach. Once again, my approach to historical philosophy is not
the approach that I have termed philosophically oriented history (POH). In POH, the
focus is more heavily on the impact and influence of the historical context in order to
understand and reconstruct what a thinker might have thought, and why. I opt
instead for the approach I have called historically informed philosophy (HIP). With
this approach my focus lies more heavily on analysis of the concepts at play within a
given system. I recognize and respect the importance of historical context on
adequately analyzing historical work, and this dimension comes to the fore more
strongly in this paper than it does in the other two, because understanding how
Hume conceived of, and implemented, changes in the New Science, depends on
historical circumstances. On balance, however, my approach is to focus more
squarely on the role and evolution of unit-ideas than it is to focus on the way
elements of texture from the time period bear on what was said.
Hobbes’ Empiricist Account of Mind & Volition
It is helpful in understanding Hobbes’ account of volition that it be examined within
the context of his general economy of the mind. There are three broad concepts that
act as tools and constraints giving shape to Hobbes’ picture of mind, and thereby, of
volition: materialism, empiricism, and the New Science. From within this
framework, a model of mind emerges that exhibits telltale features that are shared
with other Modern empiricist, New Scientist accounts.
Recall that Hobbes believes that everything is matter in motion. For Hobbes, the
particles out of which everything is comprised behave according to deterministic and
universal laws of nature. Hobbes’ commitment to materialism is an expression of a
metaphysical commitment that is logically separate, though consistent with, his
commitment to empiricism. Hobbes’ materialism gels cleanly with his commitment
88
to the New Science. He affirms that motion operates in a mechanical fashion based
on contact, and this is consistent with the empiricist orientation toward the senses as
the source of knowledge.
Hobbes’ empiricism is expressed in his foundational belief that everything that is in
the mind was first in the senses. Unlike Descartes, Hobbes orients himself toward
sensory experience as a source for, and foundation of a theory of knowledge.
Because the sensory is fundamental for knowledge for Hobbes, the sensory organs
and by extension the body, are directly implicated in the development of knowledge.
This contrasts sharply with the rationalist orientation away from the senses as a
source and foundation for a theory of knowledge. This difference can be seen very
clearly by looking at Descartes as a relevant foil to the empiricist position.
Descartes is “struck by the large number of falsehoods” he had accepted as true
based on data from the senses; “I have found that the senses deceive, and it is
prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once”
(Descartes, 12). The distrust Descartes feels toward the senses as a foundation for
knowledge motivates him, according to his Meditations, to look for another source
and foundation for knowledge. In search of this, he orients himself inward, asking
himself if there is anything in his experience that cannot be doubted. This method of
“radical doubt” is a step in Descartes’ search for knowledge in the ability to grasp
truths through the understanding:
I now know that even bodies are not strictly perceived by the senses
or the faculty of imagination but by the intellect alone, and that this
perception derives not from their being touched or seen but from
their being understood; and in view of this I know plainly that I can
achieve an easier and more evident perception of my own mind than
of anything else. (22)
89
Because of his initial move away from the body to establish knowledge, Descartes
must eventually re-establish the connection between the “internal” and the
“external” worlds in a different way.
This difference in orientation toward the senses between Hobbes and Descartes
deeply impacts the way each explains the relationship between mind and body, or
corporeality. Descartes affirms a strong distinction between mind and body on the
grounds that such a distinction can be “clearly and distinctly” perceived by the mind.
In other words, he appeals to what can be thought to ground his account of the
relationship between mind and body. Because it is the mind’s powers that ground
knowledge, what the mind can clearly and distinctly perceive can be trusted. But
because Hobbes orients himself toward sensation as the foundation for knowledge,
this appeal to what can be “clearly and distinctly perceived” by the mind is not
justifiable, from his perspective. This important difference about what one can
appeal to in order to justify a knowledge claim comes out in Hobbes’ Fourth
Objection to Descartes’ Meditations on the nature of the human mind. In this
objection, Hobbes again takes issue with Descartes on the matter of his distinction
between mind and body. Descartes had presented the argument that, because he has
a clear and distinct idea of the mind, and a clear and distinct idea of the body, it
follows that the two are distinct. This is because anything that can be clearly and
distinctly conceived of, God can create. Hobbes writes,
There is a great difference between imagining, that is, having an
idea, and conceiving in the mind, that is, using a process of
reasoning to infer that something is, or exists. But M. Descartes has
not explained how they differ…Now, what shall we say if it turns
out that reasoning is simply the joining together and linking of
names or labels by means of the verb ‘is’? It would follow that the
inferences in our reasoning tell us nothing at all about the nature of
things, but merely tell us about the labels applied to them; that is, all
we can infer is whether or not we are combining the names of things
90
in accordance with the arbitrary conventions which we have laid
down in respect of their meaning. If this is so, as may well be the
case, reasoning will depend on names, names will depend on the
imagination, and imagination will depend (as I believe it does)
merely on the motions of our bodily organs; and so the mind will be
nothing more than motion occurring in various parts of an organic
body (Descartes, 125-126).
In response, Descartes directs his reader to the proof of the “real distinction” in the
Sixth Meditation. There, Descartes argues that the “real distinction” between mind
and corporeality is “clearly and distinctly” perceived. In Descartes’ second reply he
admits that metaphysically, if not conceptually, it is possible that there is no real
distinction between mind and body when he writes,
[Hobbes] is quite right in saying that ‘we cannot conceive of an act
without its subject’. We cannot conceive of thought without a
thinking thing, since that which thinks is not nothing. But then he
goes on to say, quite without reason, and in violation of all usage and
all logic: ‘It seems to follow from this that a thinking thing is
something corporeal.’ It may be that the subject of any act can be
understood only in terms of a substance (or even, if he insists, in terms
of ‘matter’, i.e. metaphysical matter); but it does not follow that it
must be understood in terms of a body. (123-124)
The contrast between Hobbes and Descartes highlights the differences that arise in
their accounts of mind on the basis of their orientation toward sensation. Rather
than mistrust the senses, Hobbes turns toward them in giving his account of mind.
In order to expose how his empiricism, materialism, and New Science commitments
eventuate in a very particular view of volition, I present Hobbes’ theory of
psychology.
91
According to Hobbes, tiny particles make contact with the sense organs, and these
motions work on the nerves and the brain to produce internal experience. They can
be experienced variously—as conceptions, if they are thoughts in the head, or
passions if they are in the heart. Passions and conceptions have different properties,
and they function in distinct ways. Thoughts are images, and these images can be
“marked” internally with symbols or words, and this is how they can be organized
and recalled for later deliberation or reasoning. Hobbes thinks reasoning is
essentially syllogistic. He calls reasoning ratiocination or computation. Thoughts
are objective in the sense that the symbols they represent can be made available for
inter-personal evaluation. For instance, two men can argue between themselves over
inferences made in an argument, and so long as they both follow correct rules of
reasoning, they can come to agree on the same view. This is one way thoughts differ
from passions. Because they are inherently subjective, passions are not similarly
available for evaluation by others. For this reason feelings are not moral objects.
Hobbes calls passion an internal “endeavour”, which means that passion solicits
movement. They are essentially provocations to draw near something that is
pleasing, or away from something displeasing. When the movement is toward what
is pleasing it is appetite; when the movement is away from that which is displeasing,
it is aversion. At the experiential level, feelings are pleasures and pains. Passions
create movement in the body, and supply the motivation necessary for action. In
combination with thoughts, they create the full range of subtle and diverse human
experiences, including glory, fear, dread, and hope.
According to Hobbes, many of the problems that we have in thinking about volition
come from the mistaken idea that volition, or the will, is a faculty. In fact, volition is
nothing more than the motion of particles. Perhaps because it motivates action, in
Hobbes’ view volition is identified with passion, namely the last appetite or aversion
that occurs before action takes place. Hobbes writes, “In deliberation the last
appetite, as also the last fear is called WILL (viz.) the last appetite will to do; the last
fear will not to do, or will to omit. It is all one therefore to say will and last will”
(Elements of Law, 61). The causes of appetites and fears are also the causes of our
92
wills. Hobbes writes,
Forasmuch as will to do is appetite, and will to omit, fear; the causes
of appetite and of fear are the causes also of our will. But the
propounding of benefits and of harms, that is to say, of reward and
punishment, is the cause of our appetite and of our fears, and
therefore also of our wills […] (Elements of Law, 63)
Passions are not voluntary: “Appetite, fear, hope, and the rest of the passions are not
called voluntary; for they proceed not from, but are the will; and the will is not
voluntary” [italics mine] (Elements of Law, 62). Volition cannot be free from the
universal laws of nature, and thus cannot be free from the consequences of previous
events or actions. It can be free only in the sense of being unencumbered or
unconstrained. For example, a person in a locked room cannot voluntarily leave that
room, constrained as they are by the lock. In this sense, the person’s will is not free.
By way of contrast, a person in an unlocked room is “free” to leave, being
unconstrained. But there is no sense of freedom over and above this one; Hobbes is
clear that volition, as well as everything else, occurs as the result of antecedent
causes. 20
To summarize: mind is particles in motion. Thoughts and passions interact to
produce inner experience; they also work together to create deliberate action.
Volition is passion, more particularly, the last appetite or aversion that takes place
before action. Because the universe is lawful, everything moves according to these
laws in combination with antecedent events or causes. Hobbes’ account of volition
fits squarely and consistently within his general view of mind as it is informed and
constrained by materialism, empiricism, and the New Science.
20
Hobbes is often understood to be a compatibilist in contemporary terms.
93
Hume’s Empiricist Approach to Mind
Before we can see the reason why Hume’s account of volition aligns so neatly with
Hobbes’, it’s important to understand the nature of Hume’s version of empiricism
and his understanding of the New Science. Hume is empiricist in the sense that has
been discussed already—he believes that sense experience is fundamental to
knowledge, and he orients himself toward the senses as a foundation for knowledge,
as opposed to away from it. Hume is a New Scientist in the sense that he affirms the
new paradigm that replaces Aristotelianism, and is anti-authoritarian in tenor. He
does not offer teleological explanations, nor refer to occult forces and powers as
explanatory. However, Hume’s empiricism is distinct from Hobbes’ and Locke’s in
important and relevant ways. Hume’s conception of the New Science also differed
in important ways, in particular on the matter of efficient causation.
Hume is sometimes thought to have endeavoured to more fully develop the
consequences of Locke’s more cautious empiricism. Like Locke, Hume thinks that
the mind is a blank slate at birth. He affirms that there are no innate ideas within the
mind; everything is acquired through experience. Hume aims to establish a science
upon cautious and judicious observation of human life, and he thinks that
understanding the workings of mind is key to understanding everything else. This is
because while humans are the scientists studying nature, we cannot know for certain
what the external world is like without turning our inquiries inward, toward the
human being. Understanding human nature promises to provide a foundation for the
rest of the sciences. Getting clear on the nature of human understanding is a crucial
first task in developing an understanding of the natural world. Thus, human beings
are also the objects of scientific scrutiny. Hume opines,
‘Tis evident, that all the sciences have a relation, greater or less, to
human nature; and that however wide any of them may seem to run
from it, they still return back by one passage or another. Even
Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, and Natural Religion, are in
94
some measure dependent on the science of MAN; since they lie
under the cognizance of men, and are judg’d of by their powers and
faculties. (4)
Hume writes,
‘Tis impossible to tell what changes and improvements we might
make in these sciences were we thoroughly acquainted with the
extent and force of human understanding, and cou’d explain the
nature of the ideas we employ, and of the operations we perform in
our reasonings…we ourselves are not only the beings, that reason,
but also one of the objects, concerning which we reason. (4)
According to Hume, the science of man is the only solid foundation for the other
sciences, and the bedrock of the science of man is experience and observation.
Legitimate science—and all knowledge—rests on a foundation of empiricism.
Impressions & Ideas
Hume’s view of mind begins with a distinction he makes between impressions and
ideas. These differ in the degree of force and liveliness that they strike the mind with
and make their way into consciousness. Forceful perceptions are impressions, and
these include sensations, passions, and emotions. Impressions are immediate
sensations as they are taking place. By way of contrast, ideas are “faint images” or
copies of impressions that are derivative of sense experience. Hume explains,
An impression first strikes upon the senses, and makes us perceive
heat or cold, thirst, or hunger, pleasure or pain of some kind or
other. Of this impression there is a copy taken by the mind, which
remains after the impression ceases; and this we call an idea. This
idea of pleasure or pain, when it returns upon the soul, produces the
95
new impressions of desire and aversion, hope and fear, which may
properly be called impressions of reflection, because derived from
it. These again are copied by the memory and imagination, and
become ideas; which perhaps in their turn give rise to other
impressions and ideas. So that the impressions of reflection are only
antecedent to their correspondent ideas; but posterior to those of
sensation, and derived from them. 21 (11)
All simple ideas are derived from impressions which are correspondent to them, and
which they represent exactly. Impressions and ideas are constantly conjoined, and
experience shows that simple impressions always precede their correspondent ideas.
On the other hand, the contrary never appears. Impressions have a position of
priority, and thus Hume concludes that they are the causes of our ideas, and not the
reverse (9).
Hume confirms this empirically with the observation that when sense organs are
obstructed in their operations, not only are the impressions lost, but so are the
corresponding ideas. No trace of them ever arises in the mind. This is true not only
when the sense organs are destroyed, but also where they have never been put into
action to produce a sensation. Without having actually tasted a pineapple, for
example, we cannot formulate to ourselves an idea of it.
Hume’s Semantic Empiricism
Hume employs a standard of semantic empiricism to determine whether or not a
statement or term has meaning. For example, Hume argues that the idea of
substance, if it has any meaning at all, must be derived from some impression of
sensation or reflection. When we closely examine the idea of substance, we find that
21
Hume goes on to say that the examination of sensation is an area that belongs
better to anatomists than to natural and moral philosophers, and so he puts the
subject aside.
96
it is neither a colour, nor a taste, nor a sound. In fact, “substance” isn’t anything that
is directly sensed. Because we don’t have any idea of substance distinct from a
collection of particular qualities, we don’t have anything else in our minds when we
talk about it. The idea of substance turns out to be nothing but a collection of simple
ideas united by the imagination. Hume writes,
[…] I believe none will assert, that substance is either a colour, or a
sound, or a taste. The idea of substance must therefore be deriv’d
from an impression of reflection, if it really exist. But the
impressions of reflection resolve themselves into our passions and
emotions; none of which can possibly represent a substance. We
have therefore no idea of substance, distinct from that of a collection
of particular qualities, nor have we any other meaning when we
either talk or reason concerning it. (16)
Insofar as our idea of substance goes beyond those impressions of particular
qualities that are derived from the senses, it is “chimerical.” We can’t come to a
satisfactory notion of substance either by considering the first origin of ideas, nor by
means of definition. For Hume, this is a sufficient reason for “abandoning utterly
that dispute concerning the materiality and immateriality of the soul,” and it makes
him, “absolutely condemn even the question itself” 22 (153).
Hume, Newton & Formulating Hypotheses
Hume rejects metaphysical hypotheses, on the grounds that they are not directly
grounded in experience. Such hypotheses may be true, but because we can’t
establish any empirical foundation for them, we are not warranted in drawing them.
22
Hume argues that since we have no perfect idea of anything but a perception, and
a perception is different from a substance, we have no idea of substance. The
question, therefore, Whether perceptions inhere in a material or immaterial
substance? cannot be answered because we do not have an understanding of the
question.
97
Hume’s “radical” version of empiricism demands that, “we cannot go beyond
experience” 23 (5). Hume was influenced by Newton’s view of the way science is
properly done. Contemporary historians agree that Newton’s empiricism involves a
career-long rejection of “hypotheses” in natural philosophy. Newton’s version of
the New Science differs from the Cartesians’ and others who had no compunction
about positing causal explanations and metaphysical suppositions. Rather, Newton
strives strenuously to sever all ties between his investigations and a commitment to
metaphysical “first principles” (Domski, 525). Newton railed against hypotheses,
which are conjectural causal explanations, in fulfillment of his aim to preserve the
certainty of scientific principles. He believes that a more certain science involves
formulating theories in terms of observed properties, without any causal
explanations. Newton’s famous dictum, hypothesis non fingo is an expression of his
commitment to the kind of empiricism that does not go beyond the phenomena. He
writes,
Hitherto we have explained the phaenomena of the heavens and of
our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the
cause of this power…But hitherto I have not been able to discover
the cause of those properties of gravity from phaenomena, and I
frame no hypotheses; 24 for whatever is not deduced from the
phaenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses,
whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or
mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this
philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the
phaenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus
23
To drive this point even further, Hume offers the following maxim that is
“condemn’d by several metaphysicians” to the effect that “an object may exist, and
yet be no where” (154). This is the case with all our perceptions and objects, except
those of sight and feeling. Not only do objects and perceptions like moral
reflections not require any particular place, but they are “absolutely incompatible
with it” (155).
24
Newton’s “hypotheses non fingo” is variously interpreted as, “I do not feign
hypotheses”.
98
it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive
force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were
discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist,
and act according to the laws which we have explained, and
abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial
bodies, and of our sun [sic]”. (Newton, 1159)
While the “mechanical philosophy” was popular in the late seventeenth century, by
the mid eighteenth century it had become a narrower term used by Leibniz and the
Cartesians to specify a position in opposition to Newton (Sapadin, 341).
Hume follows Newton in his rejection of the practice of formulating hypotheses
beyond deductions from phenomena. When Hume speaks of the “experimental
method” he is referring to Newton (337). In The History of England (1778) volume 6
he writes, “Newton…shewed…the imperfections of the mechanical philosophy”
(542). Like Newton, Hume firmly believes that we ought not to go beyond
experience in developing the science of man. He writes, “any hypothesis, that
pretends to discover the ultimate original qualities of human nature, ought at first to
be rejected as presumptuous and chimerical” (5). He continues, “[A]s the science of
man is the only solid foundation for the other sciences, so the only solid foundation
we can give to this science itself must be laid on experience and observation” (4).
Hume’s rejection of metaphysical hypotheses creates significant differences from the
more moderate empiricists, Hobbes and Locke. For example, Hume employs an
eviscerated concept of causation.
Hume takes the notion of causation to be subject to his standard of semantic
empiricism. He proposes to, “turn the ideas of cause and effect on all sides,”
looking for the impression from which these ideas arise. Thinking that the idea of
causation must derive from some relation among objects, Hume finds that it is
contiguity and succession that are the essential relations among cause and effect. In
other words, Hume denies the ordinary sense of causation and replaces it with one
99
that acknowledges only that we observe that one thing follows from another. He
argues that motion in one body is regarded as the cause of motion of another upon
contact. When we pay careful attention we notice that one body approaches the
other, and that its motion precedes the motion of the other. He writes,
Motion in one body is regarded upon impulse as the cause of
motion in another. When we consider these objects with the
utmost attention, we find only that the one body approaches the
other, and that the motion of it precedes that of the other, but
without any sensible interval…we can go no farther in considering
this particular instance. (Treatise, 54-55)
We can’t establish any necessary connection from the known qualities of objects.
About this, Winkler (1991) writes,
According to Hume, our only causal conceptions (of any sort) are
captured either by his own definitions, or by the loose and
inaccurate ideas against which he argues…Necessity as we
understand it lies entirely in the mind…This cuts off belief in
objective necessary connection…without positively denying its
existence. (576).
There is no case in which the ultimate connection between any objects can be
discovered either by our senses, or by reason. We cannot penetrate into the essence
and construction of bodies, but can only observe their constant union. Instead, what
we experience is constant union, and it’s from this that we get the idea of necessity
(257). The mind draws an inference about causation from the experience of one
thing following from another. But causation itself is never directly experienced. In
Book II, Part III, section I of the Treatise, Hume writes,
100
If objects had not an uniform and regular conjunction with each
other, we shou’d never arrive at any idea of cause and effect; and
even after all, the necessity, which enters into that idea, is nothing
but a determination of the mind to pass from one object to its usual
attendant, and infer the existence of one from that of the other. Here
then are two particulars, which we are to consider as essential to
necessity, viz. the constant union and the inference of the mind; and
wherever we discover these we must acknowledge a necessity. As
the actions of matter have no necessity, but what is deriv’d from
these circumstances, and it is not by any insight into the essence of
bodies we discover their connection, the absence of this insight,
while the union and inference remain, will never, in any case,
remove the necessity. (257-258)
The inference Hume is talking about here is the habitual determination of the mind
to form a lively idea of the effect upon having an impression of the cause. While it
is true that we infer the one from the other by observing their constant union, it is
essential to remember that, “the inference is nothing but the effects of custom on the
imagination” (261). When we call one object the cause, and the other the effect, and
consider them in themselves, distinct and separate from each other, we can’t infer
one from the other. The connection between the two is a perception of the mind.
When we observe the same union, we have the idea of causes. “From this constant
union [the mind] forms the idea of cause and effect, and by its influence feels the
necessity” (261). In other words, Hume’s sense of causation is not metaphysical, but
it points instead to the way that our minds habitually perceive things.
Hume’s extreme form of empiricism lead him to refrain from positing causal
explanations, as well as metaphysical suppositions that go, “beyond the
phenomena.” While Hume was committed to the New Science, his understanding of
it differed in important ways from other major thinkers during his time. His view
was not mechanistic, which can be seen from the sense of causation at play in his
101
system. The fact that Hume is not a mechanist does not mean that his view is
inconsistent with mechanical explanations. Hume certainly does not deny
mechanism. He simply advocates restricting causal and metaphysical claims to what
is warranted only on the basis of the phenomena. For this reason, his view is a kind
of “metaphysical agnosticism.” He seeks to remain silent on metaphysical matters.
This is not because he thinks metaphysical statements are false, but because his
concern is about developing knowledge that is warranted by his empiricist
presuppositions.
Hume’s View of Volition
Hume calls the will the most remarkable of all the immediate effects of pain and
pleasure (Hume, 257). The will is not, strictly speaking, a passion—Hume’s
taxonomy of the passions includes desire, aversion, grief, joy, hope, and fear—but it
is necessary to the explanation of the passions. By “will” Hume means, “the
internal impression we feel and are conscious of, when we knowingly give rise to
any new motion of our body, or new perception of our mind” (257). Hume’s
understanding of the will as an impression is a forceful perception of the human
mind. Impressions for Hume are sensations, passions, and emotions. The notion of
volition Hume espouses then, is that it is a sensation, feeling, or passion that is
experienced via the senses, and which produces motion in the body. It is not a
faculty. The similarity with Hobbes is clear. Both Hobbes and Hume arrive at this
similar view because of the empiricism behind the view. Both Hobbes and Hume
orient toward sensation as the foundation of knowledge, which places sensory
experience at the centre of what can be experienced and known. While Hobbes
gives a more in depth account of how objects interact with the senses to produce
experience, Hume does not. He is interested in what can be known from experience,
and therefore does not attend to metaphysical questions. As Hume mentions,
questions of physiology are ones that he leaves to the anatomists.
102
Buckle’s Argument
In his 2012 paper, “Hume on the Passions” Stephen Buckle makes a case that Hume
is a covert materialist. This argument is particularly relevant because the errors
made in this argument depend on a failure to appreciate the way Hume’s version of
the New Science and empiricism work together to produce his view of volition.
Buckle’s argument draws on the similarity between Hobbes and Hume on volition to
claim that, since Hobbes and Hume are so similar on the structure of volition, and
since Hobbes is a materialist, then inference to the best explanation is that Hume too,
is a materialist. But as I’ll show, the similarity between Hume and Hobbes derives
not from any shared metaphysical view, but instead, is the result of their shared
empiricism combined with their commitment to the New Science. Because Buckle
doesn’t take account of the Newtonian nuance of Hume’s approach to the New
Science, he conflates it with the approach of the Cartesians—an approach that Hume
was clearly in opposition to.
First, I show that the relevant parts of Hobbes’ account of volition are rooted in his
empiricism, not his materialism. Second, I expose why the variation among the
notions of empiricism and New Science is sufficient to account for the shared
similarity between Hume and Hobbes on volition. Neither of these views implies
materialism. Inference to the best explanation, therefore, is that Hume is not best
regarded as implicitly materialist—at least not for the reasons Buckle provides.
Contrasts Between Hobbes and Descartes
In laying the groundwork for his case, Buckle begins by setting up a contrast
between two kinds of explanation of volition. The first is materialist—the one that
Hobbes offers—and the second is dualist, and this is exemplified by Descartes’
account. Buckle shows the alignment of Hume’s view with Hobbes’, pointing out
that the rest of the contrasts also hold between Hume and Descartes. Namely, he
103
argues that since Hobbes differs from Descartes on the issue of materiality, Hume
must also differ in just the same way. 25
Beginning with Descartes and Hobbes, Buckle points out that both philosophers
agree that the passions have a bodily origin. Since Hobbes believes that everything
is matter in motion, passions are matter in motion. Because thought and passion are
metaphysically identical, the materialist does not set up a hierarchy among them, the
way that a dualist can. Thought does not “rule” passion in any way, whereas for the
dualist, just such a hierarchy can be invoked. Thus, it is difficult for a materialist to
provide an account of volition whereby the rational part of the human being—the
thinking part—intervenes on the passionate impulses. Instead, volition is subject to
the same natural universal laws that govern matter. Volition is governed by
deterministic laws, and is itself determined. By way of contrast, while the dualist
can affirm that passions arise as a result of material motion in the brain, he denies
that the mind is constituted by those brain events. Instead, the mind stands apart
from feelings and passionate impulses, and is capable of judging and intervening
upon them. The mind is immaterial, and is independent from the passions, which are
bodily, and hence material. The immaterial mind can exercise control over bodily
processes. Because of the separation of mind from passion, a libertarian conception
of volition becomes possible. In Buckle’s words,
[T]he dualist will affirm that the human being is rational and free.
The materialist in contrast, can be expected to resist any separation
and independence of the mind from those processes which occur in it
because of motions in the brain and body: thought, volition and
passion should all occur on the same level, such that no part of the
mind – in particular no rational part – can claim rule over the rest.
25
It’s important to keep in mind that while Hobbes and Descartes disagree about the
materiality of mind, they do not disagree about the materiality of the natural world.
Hume, on the other hand, strives to draw no such conclusions at all, restricting his
views to only what is warranted on the basis of the phenomena.
104
(192-3)
Buckle calls this the litmus test for distinguishing dualist and materialist positions.
Contrasting Descartes’ dualism with a materialist perspective, Buckle draws
attention to a patterned set of conceptual relationships. Buckle writes,
The materialist, in contrast [to the dualist who affirms the human
being is rational and free], can be expected to resist any separation
and independence of the mind from those processes which occur in it
because of motions in the brain and body: thought, volition and
passion should all occur on the same level, such that no part of mind
– in particular, no rational part – can claim to rule over the rest.
This is precisely what we find in Hobbes. He denies the very
possibility of control over the passions by denying any space for
reason or volition that is independent of passion: instead, he defines
volitions by reference to the passions themselves…He also treats the
passions as a species of imagination: just as ‘sense is motion in the
organs and interior parts of man’s body’, so ‘it is evident that the
imagination is the first internal beginning of all voluntary
motion’…This commits Hobbes to determinism.” (193)
It’s true that Hobbes denies the possibility of control of the passions by reason, and
that his account of volition is deterministic. But the story that Buckle tells is that
this is because of Hobbes’ materialism. Materialism is consistent with this way of
structuring mind, but it’s not the case that if mind is structured this way, then the
account is materialist. Hobbes’ account is structured as it is in large part because of
his empiricism. It is the empiricism in Hobbes’ account that leads him to understand
mind as bodily. Since mind is body, then there are no divisions among kinds of
things that make up the human being—there are not material parts and immaterial
parts that need to find a way to interact, and which structure themselves in a
hierarchy. There is no hierarchy because both thoughts and passions are body.
105
Notice that this view does not imply materialism. One can hold that thoughts and
passions are bodily—whatever it is that body turns out to be, notwithstanding.
The Function of Empiricism in Hobbes’ Account
In making his case for Hume the materialist, Buckle begins by setting up a set of
contrasts between the paradigmatic dualist—Descartes—and the paradigmatic
materialist—Hobbes. Because these thinkers are exemplars of dualism and
materialism, it is understandable why Buckle might treat them as foils on account of
their complementary metaphysical commitments. It’s not their metaphysical
commitments, however, that are driving the sets of contrasts at issue. Instead, it is
their epistemological ones. While Descartes is a dualist, he is also a rationalist. And
while Hobbes is a materialist, he is also an empiricist. The important distinction
between Descartes and Hobbes is the way each one orients his view toward the role
of sensation in the production of knowledge.
Recalling our earlier discussion, what’s clear in Descartes’ account of mind is that
he makes a conscious move away from sensation, focussing on the “large number of
falsehoods” the senses have produced in him, thereby creating a doubtful edifice
upon which all his views were based. An important aim of his Meditations is to
demolish everything of this edifice and start again from the right foundations, in
order to establish knowledge in the sciences that could be stable and lasting. In so
doing, Descartes finds the senses to be deceivers, writing, “Whatever I have up till
now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses or through the
senses…I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust
completely those who have deceived us even once” (Descartes, 12). Given that this
is so, Descartes’ method is to look “inward” to the mind to develop a rationalist
foundation for knowledge. This is to say that he turns consciously and explicitly
away from sensation and the senses as a reliable source or foundation for knowledge.
Descartes is a staunch rationalist.
106
Contrast this with Hobbes who, on the other hand, consciously and explicitly turns
toward the senses as a foundation for knowledge. Hobbes affirms that the
foundation for all knowledge is sensation, writing, “there is no conception in a
man’s mind, which hath not at first, totally, or by part, been begotten upon the
organs of sense. The rest are derived from that original” (Leviathan, 85). This very
different initial orientation makes all the difference for the resulting view of the
production of knowledge for each thinker. Since the sense organs are a kind of
conduit for knowledge according to Hobbes, the body is directly implicated in the
discovery or discernment of information. We look to the senses to tell us what the
case is.
It is important to note that neither empiricism nor rationalism entail any
metaphysical position in particular, nor do they entail that a metaphysical position
must be taken at all. As epistemological positions, they are about what can be
known, or the sources of knowledge—not about the nature of things. There are a
great variety of possible positions among the various metaphysical and
epistemological commitments involved here. For instance, it is possible in principle
to be a rationalist materialist, idealist, or dualist. It is possible to be a rationalist who
is agnostic, or remains silent about metaphysical matters. Likewise, depending on
the degree and type of empiricism at issue, it is possible to be an empiricist
materialist, dualist, idealist, or to remain metaphysically agnostic on the matter of
metaphysics. These notions can combine in various ways, so that it’s not the case
that if one is a rationalist, as is Descartes, one is also a dualist, as Descartes happens
to be. What is at issue in the contrasting set of commitments between Descartes and
Hobbes is their opposing epistemological positions—not their metaphysical ones.
This can be seen in two ways. First, by looking at what follows from each
metaphysical position. There is nothing inherent about dualism that entails a
libertarian view of volition. True, the dualist has an easy way to appeal to
libertarianism by conceptualizing mind and body as distinct kinds of things. But this
appeal is not as problem-free as it first might appear. The renowned problem the
107
dualist faces is the problem of interaction: if there are two kinds of things in
existence, how can the one interact with, or influence the other? The details of how
the immaterial mind causally—or even more precisely, mechanistically—impacts
the material body are in short supply. Without such an account, the dualist’s claim
to free and easy libertarian free will is rather hand-wavy. But more importantly than
that, libertarianism doesn’t follow from a dualist position. One might be a dualist
and nevertheless deny that there is such a faculty as volition, and further deny that
one is free to intervene on causal processes.
Finding the Right Contrasts
The mistake that Buckle makes in drawing his parallel between Descartes and
Hobbes is that, while he intends to compare and contrast dualism and materialism,
what he is actually contrasting is materialism and rationalism. It is not the position
that two kinds of things exist that moves Descartes to structure his account of mind
such that the thinking part can rule over the passions. No internal mental/bodily
hierarchy is implied at all by dualism itself. Instead, it is Descartes’ rationalism that
moves him to structure the mind this way. It is that part of the mind that can attain
to truth independently of the senses that provides the human being with reason and
knowledge. This falls out of Descartes’ self-conscious move away from sensation as
a foundation for knowledge. 26 Rather than orient toward sensation as a foundation
for knowledge, Descartes instead builds his foundation of knowledge in a
paradigmatically rationalist way. This is what leads him to structure his account of
mind and passion as he does—that which cannot be doubted turns out to be the fact
that Descartes is in meditation, in thought. He writes, “At last, I have discovered
it—thought; this alone is inseparable from me. I am, I exist—that is certain”
(Descartes, 18). The mind itself is the foundation for knowledge. This
epistemological claim is separate from the dualist metaphysic that Descartes argues
26
Because Descartes finds the senses to be deceivers, he begins his meditations by
stopping up his senses and doubting everything that can be doubted. In so doing, he
turns “inward” to establish a different foundation for knowledge—one based on
rationality.
108
for. Descartes’ metaphysics supports and is consistent with his rationalism, but
neither of the two entail or imply one another.
The problem with comparing and contrasting materialism and rationalism is that
materialism is a metaphysical position, while rationalism is an epistemological
position. Not realizing this inappropriate set of contrasts, Buckle provides evidence
of Hobbes’ denial of the possibility of control over the passions by reason as support
for his conclusion that Hume was a materialist. For example, Buckle writes, “The
materialist, in contrast can be expected to resist any separation and independence of
the mind from those processes which occur in it because of motions in the brain and
body…This is precisely what we find in Hobbes” (Buckle, 193). He then continues,
Hobbes thus offers an account of the relation between reason, will,
imagination and passion that is wedded to his materialism. This
account is explicitly materialist by explaining all psychological
phenomena by reference to physiological causes. But it also shows
how a theory could be implicitly materialist: by avoiding the
physiology, but affirming the conjunction of doctrines about reason,
will, imagination and passion that is distinctive of the Hobbesian
theory. Hume’s theory does just this. (195)
What Buckle’s argument implies is that the source of Hobbes’ view of mind,
particularly the relations between reason, passion, volition, and body, is his
materialism. This is mistaken. While it’s true that each of the elements of this
constellation of relations is consistent with materialism, is also consistent with any
number of metaphysical positions. Refraining from asserting a bifurcated mindbody system is not equivalent to the claim that everything that exists is matter. Even
more to the point: this constellation of ideas is consistent with metaphysical
agnosticism. It is conceptually possible not to make claims about the ultimate nature
of reality, and mind in particular, and still maintain the general structure of mind
that Hobbes offers, whereby volition is a passion that causes motion, and creates
109
action and behaviour in the human being. Instead of materialism as the source of
Hobbes’ view of mind, it’s his empiricism that creates this constellation of ideas.
Parallels Between Hobbes and Hume
After drawing up the ways that Descartes and Hobbes contrast with each other in
their accounts of volition, Buckle takes himself to have articulated the key
differences between a materialist and a dualist account. In the second part of his
argument, he compares the accounts of Hume and Hobbes with one another, with the
aim of showing their patterned similarity. As several commentators have noted,
Hume and Hobbes both offer very similar accounts of volition, and mind more
generally. Buckle calls Hume’s account, “pure Hobbism” and writes, “Hume’s
definition of the will could have been written by Hobbes himself” (197). There is no
contest to the fact that the two accounts are very similar. The issue is not about
whether the similarity exists, but instead the issue is about the source of the
similarity. Buckle reasons that Hume’s view is “implicitly materialist” because his
view of the will is “nothing more than an experience that attends, or is part of a
chain of causes and effects” (197). Buckle quotes Hume saying, “by the will, I mean
nothing but the internal impressions we feel and are conscious of, when we
knowingly give rise to any new motion of our body, or new perception of our mind”
(ibid). According to Buckle, the resembling feature of Hume’s account with
Hobbes’ is that,
Hume’s argument, like Hobbes’, reduces freedom to the power to
choose…Hume’s compatibility argument is not to weaken the case
for determinism, but to remove any objection to it…In affirming
these two aspects of Hobbes’ determinism, Hume thereby endorses
doctrines that are key elements of Hobbes’ materialist account of the
human being. (198)
110
Because the views of Hobbes and Hume are similar, and yet given that Hume is not
a materialist (as he explicitly denies taking any metaphysical position, and condemns
materialism particularly), the similarity must lie elsewhere. With another source of
this similarity, Hume doesn’t have to be an implicit materialist. This is a better
interpretation because it accords with Hume’s avowed position. The similarity
between Hobbes and Hume isn’t rooted in a shared materialism, but in the
combination of empiricism and New Science.
Hume and Hobbes are both determinists. But in what sense is Hume a determinist?
Recall Hume’s eviscerated sense of causation, as explicated in Part I. For Hume,
causation is about the way human beings experience phenomena, not a statement
about the way the world actually is in its nature, or its underpinnings. Hume doesn’t
believe in causation in any metaphysical sense. He’s clear that causation is an
inference of the mind, resulting from the fact that we experience objects as being
constantly conjoined. Hume writes,
It has been observ’d already, that in no single instance the ultimate
connexion of any objects is discoverable, either by our senses or
reason, and that we can never penetrate so far into the essence and
construction of bodies, as to perceive the principle, on which their
mutual influence depends. ’Tis their constant union alone, with which
we are acquainted; and ‘tis from the constant union the necessity
arises. If objects had not an uniform and regular conjunction with
each other, we shou’d never arrive at any idea of cause and effect[…]
(257).
Observation of constant union creates an “inference of the mind” that there is a
necessity between the two. And, “’Tis the observation of the union, which produces
the inference” (258). Hume is consistent and careful in maintaining that humans
experience and understand events to be necessary based on the habitual inferences of
causal chains based on the experience of constant conjunction. In other words, his
111
view regarding determinism is not based on any metaphysical ones. Rather, it’s
based on his empiricism. Hume appeals to what we observe and infer from
experience to justify his sense of causation, and hence determinism. It is the shared
commitment to empiricism that leads both Hume and Hobbes to their determinism.
The determinism that underlies both accounts offered by Hume and Hobbes leads
both thinkers to deny libertarianism. But materialism isn’t the source of their shared
determinism.
Similar to the mistake he makes in his first set of comparisons, Buckle goes on to
offer more evidence in favour of the view that Hume is an implicit materialist. This
time, the evidence is the fact that Hume and Hobbes have very similar views on the
relationship between reason and passion. Like Hobbes, Hume also thinks that reason
can’t oppose a passion—only another passion can do so. Impulses of feeling can be
opposed only by other such impulses. Unless reason has the capacity to oppose such
an impulse, it is impossible that it should have any efficacy in directing the will. We
can see this where Hume writes,
‘Tis impossible reason cou’d have the latter effect of preventing
volition, but by giving an impulse in the contrary direction to our
passion; and that impulse, had it operated alone, wou’d have been
able to produce volition. Nothing can oppose or retard the impulse
of passion, but a contrary impulse; and if this contrary impulse ever
arises from reason, that latter faculty must have an original influence
on the will, and must be able to cause, as well as hinder any act or
volition. But if reason has no original influence, ‘tis impossible it
can withstand any principle, which has such an efficacy, or ever
keep the mind in suspence a moment. Thus it appears, that the
principle, which opposes our passion, cannot be the same with
reason, and is only call’d so in an improper sense. (266)
112
For Hume, reason cannot oppose a passionate impulse, and does not cause or hinder
any volition. For Buckle, the fact that Hume utilizes the language of “impulse”
implies a mechanical picture of causation. Buckle calls “impulse” the “sine qua non
of mechanical causation” (199). He interprets this to mean that passions have
impulsive force, and therefore, they are not merely impressions. He then concludes,
“thus Hume’s subordination of reason to passion, and his related incorporation of
volition into the same overall account, commits him to determinism, and, implicitly,
to materialism” (200). It’s true that Hume is committed to determinism in his sense.
But Hume’s use of the word “impulse,” surely is not sufficient to convict him of
intellectual dishonesty about his metaphysical views, or to commit him to
materialism particularly. A mechanical picture of causation is just that: a picture, or
a model. One can make use of a model without thereby implying a certain
metaphysical stand about the real nature of that which is being modeled.
Materialism hardly follows from the word “impulse.”
What’s more, it’s possible that Hume was not making use of a mechanical metaphor
at all when he used the language of “impulse.” One set of meanings of the word
“impulse” is a force, impetus, or strong and unreflective urge or desire to act. A
more consistent interpretation is that Hume intended the word to be understood in
this sense, in which case it captures the general meaning of the term “passion.”
Hume’s Metaphysical Agnosticism
Buckle’s view of Hume the implicit materialist rests on establishing that Hume
endorsed a mechanical picture of the universe. The reasoning is that, if the
mechanical view implies materialism, and Hume endorses the mechanical view, then
Hume must also endorse materialism. In support of this, Buckle argues that it was
Hume’s aim to, “explain the passions entirely in terms comparable to modern
mechanical science” (2012, 190). It’s not clear exactly what this means, since it’s
not clear in what sense an explanation might be comparable to modern mechanical
science. This might only mean that it was Hume’s aim to provide a scientific
113
account of the passions. It might also mean that Hume’s account is not inconsistent
with modern mechanical science. Because Hume remained metaphysically agnostic,
he does not reject any particular metaphysical view as false. Just so, Humean
passions are explained in a way that is consistent with modern mechanical science.
But since this doesn’t amount to a mechanical explanation, not much hangs on this.
Yet Buckle seems to think that more does hang on it. It was, Buckle admits, “a
hallmark of the mechanical philosophy to explain the passions in this way” (ibid)
and that, “For [early] modern philosophers – of all stripes – the passions were
understood to be the mental effects of bodily motions” (191). But notice that
understanding passions as the effects of bodily motions does not amount to a view
about what “bodily motions” are, metaphysically. Accordingly, Buckle
acknowledges that Descartes, the paradigmatic dualist, offered just such an account,
as did Malebranche, Hobbes, and Spinoza (190). Because Modern philosophers of
all stripes talked in terms of mechanism regarding the passions, this is not the feature
that distinguishes materialists from non-materialists. Nor does it indicate that a
metaphysical position has been taken. The use of mechanistic metaphors or models
does not imply the acceptance of any kind of ontology in particular, or of adherence
to any metaphysical position in general. The fact that Hume’s account was not
completely divorced from the mechanical philosophy does not mean that he
endorses the mechanical philosophy. Hume’s Newtonian version of the New
Science relies on his eviscerated notion of causation. Hume’s view of causation is
not mechanical—as an inference by the mind, it is more psychological than it is
mechanical. As such, it implies nothing at all about his metaphysical commitments,
except that he refrains from making any.
Buckle bolsters his case for Hume the mechanist by virtue of the way Hume treats
physiology. Buckle admits that Hume does his best, throughout the Treatise to
“avoid appeal to physiological explanations” (195). But, Buckle argues, Hume
doesn’t deny physiology, and at times appears to appeal to it. For example, in Book
1, he appeals to brain physiology to explain errors in reasoning (196). He adds that
he hasn’t made more use of physiology, not because doing so is specious and
114
implausible, but instead because doing so would go beyond experience. Hume
writes that the reason he avoids this topic is because “’twas more in prosecution of
my first maxim, that we must in the end rest contented with experience” (44). Hence
Hume does not talk much about physiology for the very reason that he finds those
concerns irrelevant to the matter that really concerns him: how the mind works. Yet
it’s true that at times, Hume explains sensation by reference to the body as the result
of physical contact with the external world, or from the body’s own inner motions.
For Buckle, this is an endorsement of materialism. If Hume is prepared to accept a
physiological account, Buckle wonders, why he doesn’t just spell this out as his
preferred view? (196) Because doing so is wide of his purpose, is the answer Buckle
provides. “But not only is he prepared to enlist psychology to his cause, where
necessary; the psychological account he offers is entirely parallel to Hobbes’ overtly
materialist account” (197). Buckle affirms that Hume’s account implies a
background physiology, and that such a physiological account is “fully in accord
with mechanical materialism” (202).
Once again, understanding the particulars of Hume’s version of empiricism makes
clear how and why Hume remains metaphysically agnostic even given his occasional
appeal to physiology. Because Hume is metaphysically agnostic, he does not affirm
or deny any particular metaphysical position. Hume thinks that the asking and
answering of metaphysical questions is inappropriate, because it requires us to go
beyond the phenomena. Just so, Hume does not deny physiology, or reject the
possibility of physicalism, because doing so would be dogmatic. Hence Hume’s
account is consistent with contemporaneous physiological explanations. But it’s not
the case that Hume’s account originates from physiological explanations. 27 His lack
of denial of physiology should not be taken as a metaphysical stance. It’s not that
we would expect Hume to deny physiology. Hume is in no way anti-materialistic,
because taking that position would be to enter into the debate about the ultimate
nature of reality. It’s not Hume’s view that physicalism is in any way incoherent, as
27
What’s more, the discipline of physiology does not depend on a materialist
metaphysic.
115
someone like Berkeley might assert. It’s Hume’s position that such questions are
distractions. Metaphysical explanations are not necessary, and can’t be answered
according to his empiricist commitments.
Rather than any shared materialism, it’s his empiricism, and more particularly, the
role that sensation plays in Hume’s approach to volition and mind more generally,
that account for the way that his view maps onto Hobbes’. Experience and
observation are the basis for knowledge for Hume, and these are mediated via the
senses. This position can be, and is coherently taken by Hume, without implication
for what the nature of the body is. And it is this central role for sensation that leads
both Hume and Hobbes to affirm hedonism, as well as the view that reason is inert,
the conception of emotion as motivational, to consider volition as a feeling, and to
determinism. For Hume, determinism is not a claim about the ultimate nature of
reality; it is an observation about a habitual inference of the mind when it encounters
constant conjunction. Hence Hume’s determinism falls directly out of his
empiricism.
Buckle’s position is that there is a constellation of ideas that work together in
Hobbes’ account of volition. In particular, Hobbes treats thoughts and feelings as of
the same metaphysical kind, and hence does not separate mind and body. Passions
are motivational, and they create movement, while thoughts are inherently inert.
Volition is passion, and cannot be intervened upon by thoughts. The account is
hedonistic determinism. Hobbes’ psychology is overtly materialist, backed up by a
mechanical physiology. This constellation of ideas shows up in almost the exact
same ways in Hume’s account, according to Buckle. Since this is so, they must share
the metaphysical presumption that is explicit in Hobbes’ account: materialism. Like
Hobbes, Hume denies that there is a faculty of the will, calling the will an
impression that accompanies action. Hume is a compatibilist; Hobbes is also
sometimes understood to be a compatibilist. Hume also “subordinates reason to
passion.” Buckle writes,
116
Taken together, then, these elements comprise a mutuallysupporting network of theses corresponding almost exactly to the
Hobbesian account of the human being as a machine. It is not
credible to suppose that these resemblances are accidental, or that
Hume did not see their significance. To hold, then, that Hume’s
account of the passions is implicitly materialist is simply to affirm
that he knew what he was doing. (204) 28
Buckle’s argument is a kind of inference to the best explanation position. But
understanding Hume as a materialist is not the best interpretation for the following
reasons. First, the parallel between Hobbes and Descartes picks out the differences
in their epistemological positions, not their metaphysical ones. Therefore, the set of
parallels that we find between Hobbes and Hume don’t contrast with the dualist
account by virtue of their underlying metaphysics, but instead, they contrast on the
basis of their epistemological commitments. It is the shared empiricism that
produces the patterned sets of commitments, and it’s Descartes’ rationalism that
produces his contrasting set of commitments. What’s more, given Hume’s
Newtonian approach to science, which influenced his particular version of
empiricism, the most consistent interpretation of Hume is that he is, as he says he is,
metaphysically agnostic. In other words, since we can interpret Hume’s view of
volition without appeal to metaphysics, then the best and most charitable
interpretation is that he in fact holds the position that he says he does.
Conclusion
There are several interpretive problems with Buckle’s account of Hume as a
materialist. I’ve uncovered many of the most important ones. The two most
significant errors Buckle makes are first, thinking that Hobbes’ materialism is what
28
Part of Buckle’s argument is that, in claiming not to engage in metaphysical
theorizing, and yet knowing what he was doing, Hume was intellectually dishonest.
This is a serious charge, and one worthy of refuting.
117
underpins the features of his view of mind and volition that are at issue here. In fact,
Hobbes’ materialism is logically separate from his empiricism, which is the real
driving force behind his view. So while Hobbes chose to affirm materialism, as far
as his account of mind is concerned, he need not have in order to arrive at the
structure of mind he advances. The second major error Buckle makes is in thinking
that Hume is a mechanist. This interpretation can only be sustained with cherrypicked evidence. Given Hume’s reiterated avowal of his intention to refrain from
metaphysical theorizing, all other things being equal, this is the better interpretation.
Hume’s view of the New Science follows the Newtonian method, whereby one does
not go “beyond the phenomena”. This is about strict adherence to observation
without formulating hypotheses. Hume’s views of both causation and determinism
align with this practice. The senses in which he affirms causation and determinism
are minimal, proportional to what he can affirm with observation. Nevertheless, his
views are consistent with physiological accounts of passion and sensation. But this
does not create any inconsistency for two reasons. The first is that, even if
physiology implied materialism, Hume’s view is consistent with materialism without
implying it. The second reason is that physiology does not imply materialism.
Physiology is the study of natural bodies, while materialism is a theory about the
basic constituents of reality. Physiology does not make a statement about the basic
constituents of the natural body, or of reality generally.
Clear understanding of Hume’s empiricism and his version of the New Science is
sufficient to explain how and why his view of volition aligns so nicely with Hobbes’,
without having to attribute a metaphysical view to him. This is the simpler
explanation, and it doesn’t require us to consider Hume intellectually dishonest.
Hume ought not to be considered a covert materialist—at least not for the reasons
Buckle provides. And yet, Buckle’s argument provides ground from which we can
appreciate the various subtleties and nuances involved in accounts of mind that
emerge from the constellation of empiricism and the New Science. Buckle’s view
provides an excellent example of the importance of understanding the relations
between empiricism, New Science, and aspects of mind as they were theorized in the
118
Modern period. Without having picked apart these notions carefully, and seeing
clearly how and why they fit together the way they do, we might be persuaded of
this inaccurate view of Hume.
119
Works Cited
Buckle, Stephen. “Hume on the Passions.” Philosophy 87. 2, (2012): 189-213.
Descartes, Rene. “Objections and Replies: Third Set of Objections With the
Author’s Replies.” The Philosophical Writings of Descartes Vol. II. Trans.
John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1985. Print.
Domski, Mary. “Newton’s Empiricism and Metaphysics.” Philosophy Compass
5.7 (2010): 525–534.
Flew, Anthony. Hume’s Philosophy of Belief. New York: The Humanities Press,
1961. Print.
Harris, James. Of Liberty and Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Print.
Hobbes, Thomas. The Elements of Law. Hobbes: English Works. Comp and
Ed., Mark C. Rooks. Charlottesville: InteLex Corporation, 1992. Web. Oct
21, 2014.
---. De Corpore. Hobbes: English Works. Compiled and edited by Mark C. Rooks.
Charlottesville: InteLex Corporation, 1992. Web. Sept. 9, 2014.
Hume, David. The History of England from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the
Revolution in 1688, Foreword by William B. Todd, 6 vols. Indianapolis:
Liberty Fund, 1983. Vol. 6. Accessed online 2016-05-29.
---. A Treatise of Human Nature: A Critical Edition. Ed. David Fate
Norton, and Mary J. Norton. Oxford Clarendon Press, 2011. Print.
Newton, Isaac. The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy in On the
Shoulders of Giants: The Great Works of Physics and Astronomy. Ed.
Stephen Hawking. Philadelphia/London: Running Press, 2002, pp.733-1160.
Print.
Penelhum, Terence. Themes in Hume: The Self, the Will, Religion. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000. Print.
Sapadin, Eugene. “A Note on Newton, Boyle, and Hume’s ‘Experimental Method.’”
120
Hume Studies 23.2 (1997): 337-344.
Stroud, Barry. Hume. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977. Print.
Winker, Kenneth P. “The New Hume.” The Philosophical Review 100.4 (1991):
541-579.
121
Chapter 5
Conclusion
The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.
~ John Maynard Keynes
Unit-Ideas - Revisited
In this dissertation I’ve analyzed issues pertaining to aspects of mind in the history
of philosophy, by way of unit-ideas. Analysis in terms of unit-ideas is an alternative
historical approach to contextualist approaches, which place primary emphasis on
the historical conditions, and the intellectual context of a given historical era, in
order to understand a certain discourse. Analyzing in terms of unit-ideas puts the
ideas themselves as the central subject. In working with unit-ideas, old arguments
and views are broken down into their component parts. This allows those
components to be re-examined in a new, different organization. It becomes possible
to bring those parts into new relations, and view them from the standpoint of a
specific purpose. The purposes, aims, and values of this historical approach are
many. Analysis in terms of unit-ideas allows different patterns of the same
component parts to be identified across key texts. Finding these patterns can provide
insight into the evolution of ideas and frameworks. It also facilitates understanding
how certain groupings of components can offer mutual support to one another, while
others produce negative tensions.
For History of Philosophy
When we understand how different unit-ideas work together, and how others don’t,
we are in a position to re-conceive old arguments. Recognizing them as
constellations of familiar components, it becomes possible to evaluate them in a
novel way. Understanding that many philosophical systems are original or
distinctive not so much in their components, but rather in their patterns can help to
122
provide a new perspective on “old” positions. Different logical combinations of
elements of a philosophical doctrine are not always readily recognizable, but in
recognizing various evolutions of these patterns, we can come to see and understand
theoretical systems at a deeper level. Doing this helps expose similarities among
theoretical systems that at first appear to be dissimilar, and we can find surprising
connections across texts.
One aim of this approach is to take note of some of the most significant influences of
bodies of thought, and to see how later generations may have derived conclusions
from them that are very different from what their originators might have thought.
Appreciation of this is very helpful when it comes to identifying and situating
evolved iterations of those ideas. This puts us in an excellent position to identify
problems that are new iterations or previously articulated patterns comprised of
these units. Recognizing evolutions of patterns of already familiar theories creates
deep understanding and insight into resolving, or abandoning these issues.
For Contemporary Philosophy
Historical analysis in terms of unit-ideas can also provide deeper understanding and
evaluation of our current unit-ideas by exposing their evolution from earlier
versions. In so doing, it creates space for us to recognize new possible combinations
of these unit-ideas, and to recognize novelty in our present theorizing, not just in
new components of our theories, but in novel patterns. It enriches the conceptual
resources at our disposal, allowing us to understand the landmark positions that
frame contemporary discussions. Making our unit-ideas and their organization
explicit exposes underlying assumptions that are too familiar to be easily noticed,
and which may be deeply embedded, un-argued for, or even un-avowed. Identifying
these assumptions helps us to ask better questions, diagnose current ills, and attend
more perceptively to the ways that philosophers have been “received.”
123
Specifics: Empiricism, New Science, and Aspects of Mind
In this dissertation, I have examined the problem of how to fit mind into the natural
world, given the presuppositions of empiricism and the New Science. In order to do
that, I’ve articulated a variety of empiricisms, as well as broken apart various tenets
of the New Science, in order to observe their various combinations in key texts.
Table 1 is a reminder of some important aspects of empiricism
Sub-variety of Empiricism
What is approached empirically
Justification
Philosophy of psychology (The science of mental development)
Individual epistemology (Grounding justification of individuals’
beliefs)
Philosophy of science (Scientific methodology)
Psychology
Source of mental contents
Mental development over time
The source of mental mechanisms
Table 1
While empiricism exists in various formulations, the fundamental idea is that the
senses are the foundation of knowledge. Empiricist thinkers orient themselves
toward sensation as a source of knowledge, as opposed to rationalist thinkers, who
are oriented away from sensation as a source of knowledge.
Table 2 is a reminder of many of the components of the New Science. As we have
seen, it is possible for a thinker to accept some of these components, and reject
others. Components of the New Science can be used in various ways along with
different components and degrees of commitment to empiricism in order to fit mind
into the natural world.
124
New Science
Rival & replacement for Aristotelianism
Anti-authoritarian in tenor
Nature
Natural world entirely passive
Motion/change is not actualization of some power in the
substance itself
Elimination of powers from all natural substances
Mode of explanation
Macro-level properties explained in terms of lower level ones
Removal of occult forces and powers
Mechanism
Mechanization of world-picture
Nature described with mathematical/geometrical concepts
Particles
Simple, unified, deterministic, quantifiable
Causation
Only efficient causes recognized or required
Rejection of teleology and final causes
Cartesian New Science
Science is demonstrative as a series of valid deductions from
(Rationalist)
self-evident truths, rather than as something rooted in
observation and experiment.
Starting point for science and physics is the existence of God (as
described in Discourse on Method)
Newtonian New Science
Self-conscious turn away from Cartesian scientific methodology
(Experimental Philosophy)
Denies the metaphysics of essences
Refrains from formulating hypotheses
Admits no more causes of natural things than such as are both
true and sufficient to explain their appearances
Whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is rejected
Whether metaphysical, physical, based on occult qualities, or
mechanical, hypotheses have no place in experimental
philosophy
Table 2
125
My purpose here is to assess these constellations for their adequacy in fitting mind
into the natural world. In order to do that, I’ve chosen three case studies that
highlight some of the virtues as well as some of the drawbacks of this class of
framework. The fundamental idea that structures this dissertation is that these
varying constellations of ideas reside in ways that are mutually supporting, and
which are productive in explaining mind, while at the same time they create negative
tensions, and new problems.
Three Case Studies: Hobbes, Locke and Hume
In the first paper, I looked at how Hobbes’ particular conception of empiricism and
his version of the New Science support one another in his account of mental
architecture. This analysis also showed that while Hobbes’ framework fits mind into
the natural world seamlessly, it leaves out some important components of mind that
don’t fit within that framework. In particular, the Hobbesian system does not
explain how content fits into this system.
As we saw in Chapter Three, commentators have long been spilling ink in search of
Locke’s “final” position on the question of freedom of the will. The trouble Locke
had with this portion of the Essay might appear as weakness, but when analyzed in
terms of his constellation of empiricism and the New Science, a very different image
appears. Here we see that Locke exposes some of the real tensions in the
presumptions of his framework. In seeing the source of these tensions, we can see
that Locke didn’t have a settled or consistent position on freedom of the will, and so
we can put this old debate to bed.
In the fourth chapter I analyzed Hume’s view of volition as it relates to his
commitments to empiricism and the New Science. Both Hume’s empiricism and his
version of the New Science differ in important ways from those of his predecessors.
Yet, Hume’s account of volition is still very similar to Hobbes’ account. This is not
because Hume was a covert materialist. Analysis in terms of unit-ideas exposes the
126
source of the similarity as a new combination of empiricism and New Science. This
chapter functions to highlight the kind of error of interpretation that can arise from
lack of clarity on the relationships between unit-ideas in general and New Science
and empiricism in particular.
Limitations:
Analysis in terms of unit-ideas is not designed for the specialist. It is intended for a
more general audience of philosophers. Because of this, there are limitations of
detail in dealing with some of the texts. A specialist in Hobbes, Locke, or Hume
might take issue with a given interpretation of each thinker’s view, based on a more
detailed understanding of that thinker. This type of analysis also stands to miss out
on some of the nuance involved in each thinker’s system. In attending to unit-ideas
as they appear, and reappear in new patterns across various texts, what falls out of
the analysis is nuance in other areas. It’s important to keep in mind, however, that a
highly specialized perspective also excludes relevant information. Because of the
coarse-grain level of analysis, the application of my findings is limited to problems
and issues that are of a similarly coarse grain.
Findings – Empiricism & New Science
Empiricism, as we have seen, comes in a variety of kinds and degrees. They all
orient toward sensation as the foundation for knowledge. As an epistemological
view, empiricism does not imply any metaphysical position, although it can be
consistent with different metaphysical positions. Empiricisms vary also according to
whether or not the formulation of “hypotheses” is justified. According to Humean
empiricism, for example, no hypotheses are warranted that go beyond observation.
This is why Hume advances a concept of causation, for example, that is not
mechanistic, but rather an inference of the mind. As far as Hume is concerned, we
cannot penetrate into the “inner” workings of appearances.
127
These variations of empiricism combine with the tenets of the New Science in ways
that are generally mutually supporting. For instance, in its rejection of Aristotelian
substances, the New Science accords with empiricism—inhering substances are not
themselves directly observed, and ought not to be admitted within an empiricist view
that affirms only what is directly observed. In its anti-authoritarian tenor, the New
Science is also mutually supporting with empiricism, which “democratizes”
knowledge by putting a priority on observations anyone can make. Both New
Science and empiricism affirm that occult forces and powers have no place in
explanation.
There are parts of the New Science and empiricism that create negative tensions with
one another. The New Science, as it was taken up and advanced in the Early
Modern period, implies a certain metaphysical view. Namely, that the world is
made up of tiny particles, that macro-level properties are to be explained in terms of
micro-level properties, and that change occurs mechanistically. This is at odds with
“radical” empiricism of Hume’s type, since this kind of empiricism affirms the
inappropriateness of such metaphysical theorizing. The Newtonian version of New
Science accords well, however, with Humean empiricism.
Fitting Mind into the Natural World
The question remains about how well each of these combinations of New Science
and empiricism succeeds at fitting the mind into the natural world. Hobbes’
explanation of mind as fitting in with the natural world succeeds by essentially
leaving out certain properties of mind by construing man as a machine. But Hobbes’
does not explain how content gets into the system, nor does he explain how it could
possibly get into the system. There is no indication that Hobbes was even aware of
this problem. One strategy for avoiding this problem is to say that content just is
physical or material in one way or another, and hence that it does have the same
properties as the natural world, viewed from the appropriate level. With this
strategy, we still require an account of how it is that content is physical. Without
128
this, there is no explanation.
When analyzed from the perspective of unit-ideas, Locke’s particular constellation
of empiricism and New Science creates negative tensions when it comes to fitting
mind into the natural world. Locke’s orientation toward sensation, and thus his
approach of looking internally for data and evidence, combines with the tenets of the
New Science he endorses to produce the various problems and tensions with his
account of free will. Some of the most problematic tensions are that he invokes
teleology within his explanation of volition. The teleological aspect of his account of
volition does not fit within the empiricist-New Scientist framework that is
deterministic and seeks to explain phenomena in terms of efficient causation only.
Locke’s idea of the suspension of the will does not fit with his apparent
determinism, which arises from his adherence to the New Science. Contrary to what
some of Locke’s critics on liberty and volition have argued, these inconsistencies
run deeper than a few edits that Locke failed to make. Locke would have been
unable to create consistency at the surface without making changes to his more
fundamental commitments, and there is no evidence that he was willing to do that.
This is a feature of Locke’s commitments to the New Science, as well as his
fundamental orientation toward sensation as a foundation for knowledge. These
tensions don’t arise for Descartes, who is committed to the New Science, but is
oriented away from sensation as a foundation for knowledge. His orientation away
from sensation as a foundation for knowledge allows him the theoretical space to
invoke a second ontological category. Thus he posits the immaterial, by way of
which he explains mentality. In forming a fundamental separation between mind
and matter, Descartes is thus able to avail himself of a libertarian account of free
volition that is free for the taking. What this helps us to see is that it is the
combination of the New Science and empiricism that causes negative tensions when
Locke attempts to provide a libertarian account of free will.
Understanding the way that Hume’s version of the New Science and his version of
empiricism meet to create his broader framework has served to highlight the
relevance of the variation that is possible within this constellation of unit-ideas.
129
Marrying this view of empiricism within the intellectual culture of New Scientism
created an important evolution of thought on how mind could be explained.
Following Newton in refraining from formulating hypotheses, Hume illustrates what
an empiricist-New Scientist framework could be like without metaphysical
“baggage.” Insofar as it is satisfying and possible to fit mind into the natural world
without attending to metaphysical issues, Hume’s view is consistent.
Future Directions
In Chapter Two, I briefly discussed the significance of the combination of Hobbes’
empiricism and New Science for his political philosophy. For Hobbes,
understanding the nature of mind, and particularly the mind of man is the foundation
for his political philosophy. Hobbes does not think, as I gestured at, that reason and
passion are at war with another. Mapping out exactly how and where the
empiricism and New Science that underpin Hobbes’ view of mind impact his
political philosophy is one possible future direction of this research.
Another future direction of this research might involve exploring the value-added
concepts that evolved from Locke’s wrestling with the issues of self-observation,
volition, and suspension of the will. In particular, the development of Locke’s
concept of consciousness as it relates to his empiricism and his New Science
commitments could inform how the notion of consciousness has evolved in the
literature.
Conclusion
I began this dissertation lamenting what appears to me to be an unfortunate tendency
in contemporary philosophy of mind to treat issues and problems of mind as
essentially ahistorical. This is the tendency to regard philosophy of mind as
progressed beyond what historical figures have to teach us. There is a general sense
of confidence, it seems, that problems of mind can, and will be answered with
130
enough scientific research. But for reasons I’ve already mentioned, I don’t share
this confidence. 29 And looking at problems of mind from a historical perspective
engenders precisely the healthy skepticism about this prospect that is needed.
By looking at the way the greatest thinkers of their own time, and more generally of
the last several hundred years, struggled with fundamental confusions and problems,
we gain a more conservative sense of our own place in history, and in the process of
understanding mind. Contemporary thinkers using the same cluster of ideas
discussed here may benefit from thinking of this approach as belonging to a lineage
of similar attempts to resolve problems, and explain aspects of mind. Doing so
engenders a strong sense of humility about modern-day progress. These are virtues
of a well-rounded philosopher, but they are also attitudes that orient research
questions. Without a historical perspective to draw on, we are limited in what can
be imagined, understood, and created.
29
As Hume says, Nothing is more usual and more natural for those, who pretend to
discover any thing new to the world in philosophy and the sciences, than to insinuate
the praises of their own systems, by decrying all those, which have been advanc’d
before them. (Treatise, 3)
131
Works Cited
Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. Volume 1, Ed. Norton & Norton,
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2007.
132
Curriculum Vitae
Name:
Lisa Pelot
Post-secondary
Education and
Degrees:
Lakehead University
Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
2000-2004 H.B.A.
The University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada
2004-2005 M.A.
The University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada
2010-2016 Ph.D.
Honours and
Awards:
Province of Ontario Graduate Scholarship
2012
Dean’s Award for Research Excellence, UWO
2005
Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)
Canadian Graduate Scholarship (Master’s)
2005
Related Work
Experience
Lecturer
The University of Western Ontario
Gender & Sexuality, 2012
Lakehead University
Philosophy of the Occult & Paranormal, 2012, 2006
Introduction to Philosophy, 2012
Philosophy of Law, 2008, 2006
133